Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): International Policy Digest
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/19
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.
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.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): International Policy Digest
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/17
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.
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.
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.
Oh: Thank you very much.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): International Policy Digest
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/14
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.
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.
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.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): International Policy Digest
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/10
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.
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.
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.
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 found 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 found OpenAI, or was he just an early investor?
O’Dowd: He was an early investor and sat on the board. But did he found 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 found 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 found 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.
Jacobsen: Thanks so much Dan, I appreciate it.
O’Dowd: Thanks again. It’s been fun.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): International Policy Digest
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/06
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.
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.
Jacobsen: Thank you for your time, Mandisa.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): International Policy Digest
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/05
Since its launch in 2019, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) Broadband Fundhas 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.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): International Policy Digest
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/05
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.
Drake: No problem.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): International Policy Digest
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/04
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.
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.
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.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): International Policy Digest
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/02
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.
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.
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.
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.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): International Policy Digest
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/28
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.
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.
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.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): International Policy Digest
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/25
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 OpenMinds Institute, a cognitive defense agency dedicated to analyzing emerging threats, conducting research, and executing counter-influence operations.
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.
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 disinformationworks.
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.
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.
Jacobsen: Excellent. Thank you so much.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): International Policy Digest
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/23
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.
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.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): International Policy Digest
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/21
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.
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 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 percent of healthcare workers experienced power outages. These were targeted attacks on energy infrastructure. How do these impact patient care?
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.
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 percent 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.
Jacobsen: Given the minimum of 1,539 verified attacks on healthcare workers and infrastructure since February 2022, how are perpetrators held accountable under international law?
Poltavets: 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.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): International Policy Digest
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/20
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.
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.
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.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): International Policy Digest
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/19
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.
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.
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.
Jacobsen: Thank you for your time, Dan.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): International Policy Digest
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/12
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.
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.
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.
Pohlmann: Thank you!
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): International Policy Digest
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/12
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.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Ambassador Rae, 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 has 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.
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.
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: Ambassador 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.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): International Policy Digest
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/10
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.
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.
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.
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.
Gibbs: Likewise. Thank you.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): International Policy Digest
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/09
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.
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.
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.
Jacobsen: You’re welcome. Take care.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): International Policy Digest
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/06
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?
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.
Igwe: My pleasure.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): International Policy Digest
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/05
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.
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.
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.
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.
Volkova: Thank you.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): International Policy Digest
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/04
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 radical 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 to liberate Italy from the fascists during the Second World War.
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.
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.
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 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.
Griffin: I appreciate it.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): International Policy Digest
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/02
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.
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.
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.
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.
Pantuliano: Likewise. Thank you so much.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): International Policy Digest
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/01/30
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.
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.
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.
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.
Jacobsen: Thank you for your time, Irina.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): International Policy Digest
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/01/28
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.
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.
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.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): International Policy Digest
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/01/27
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.
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.
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.
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.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): International Policy Digest
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/01/25
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.
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.
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.
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.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): International Policy Digest
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/01/24
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): International Policy Digest
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/01/23
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.
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.
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.
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.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): International Policy Digest
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/01/18
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.
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.
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.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): International Policy Digest
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/12/16
Seyfi Tomar is Vice President of Ebs Global, a Canadian construction firm focused on creating durable and sustainable structures, from hospitals and schools to mid-rise buildings, focusing on cost efficiency and environmental responsibility. Seyfi passionately advocates for prefabricated steel systems, customizing designs to reflect local cultures while delivering eco-friendly solutions.
As a key sponsor of Rebuild Ukraine initiatives, Seyfi spearheads efforts to restore infrastructure in war-torn regions, blending Canadian expertise with international collaboration. His approach combines advanced technologies like recycled galvanized steel to address housing shortages and infrastructure demands.
Despite challenges such as securing funding from organizations like the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) and Export Development Canada (EDC), Seyfi remains committed to scaling sustainable solutions, prioritizing speed, affordability, and cultural integrity. Early projects include rebuilding Bakhmut, emphasizing innovation and resilience in the face of immense challenges.
In this interview, we explore Seyfi’s vision for Ukraine’s reconstruction following the Toronto Rebuilding Ukraine conference, exploring his approach to global recovery and sustainable innovation.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Seyfi, the Rebuilding Ukraine conference in Toronto highlighted immense challenges and opportunities. What is the most critical insight about reconstruction efforts in Ukraine that you want people to understand?
Seyfi Tomar: We have been involved since the beginning of the war. We have always wanted to help because we are a company that consistently extends a helping hand to refugees and displaced people. At the same time, we aim to facilitate using our new technology to create accommodation for those in need.
Jacobsen: Canada is geographically distant from Ukraine. How is the country overcoming logistical hurdles to play a significant role in reconstruction?
Tomar: Due to bureaucratic complexities, the Canadian government needs to make clear how it plans to fund these efforts. However, they are collaborating with us to establish facilities in Ukraine and register our companies to begin construction. Simultaneously, I have engaged with Export Development Canada and other capital firms that are heavily involved in financing reconstruction projects.
The process remains to be determined. We need to continue working on it and secure funding from institutions such as the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Export Development Canada, and the International Finance Corporation (IFC).
I have already communicated with these entities. As a Canadian company, we can also set up a manufacturing plant in Ukraine to produce prefabricated light-gauge steel panels. With over 50 years of experience in construction, during which we have built hospitals and other public buildings urgently needed in Ukraine, we are well-prepared to contribute to this effort.
We recently established a Construction Innovation Solutions Lab, which applied for funding for some projects with the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC). The same team secured some funds from MITACS in the past. This lab enables us to adapt and implement advanced technologies developed in different countries in Canada. We have already integrated some of these innovations, and any future advancements will also be applied to reconstruction projects in Ukraine.
In Ukraine, there is an urgent need for non-combustible, affordable, and sustainable buildings, including schools and hospitals. Our three companies offer a comprehensive package of solutions tailored to these needs.
Jacobsen: Your firm has introduced groundbreaking construction techniques. Could you detail these innovations and their significance for rebuilding Ukraine?
Tomar: We are currently working on engineering building systems. We use galvanized steel, which is zero-waste, sustainable, and reusable. Unlike traditional methods, where thousands of trees are cut down to build houses, our approach uses recycled galvanized steel to construct houses with zero waste. This method is exactly what Ukraine needs right now. It is also essential that we build durable houses and buildings.
Jacobsen: Bakhmut has suffered devastating destruction. Could you describe your plans to reconstruct this city and the unique challenges involved?
Tomar: I have always followed Bakhmut’s story. I have kept in touch with developments, watched a documentary, and learned its history. I met with the mayor and a few other Bakhmut individuals in Poland.
They have put together a project to build homes for 3,500 people in a manner that replicates Bakhmut’s original architecture. We agreed in principle to undertake the project. However, I am still determining the exact location, though I remember it is in western Ukraine.
We will review the details when we visit in person next week, as the architectural drawings still need to be finalized. I have spoken to someone from Export Development Canada and will coordinate with the underwriters.
The early stage of the project involves securing funding to create the architectural plans and prepare for construction. Overall, the project is still in its initial stages, so there is little to say. However, our intention is clear: we aim to start building as soon as possible. Ideally, we will be on-site before Christmas and begin construction right after the new year. How quickly we can proceed will depend on the funding we secure from various sources.
Jacobsen: Funding is often a bottleneck for large-scale projects. How are you securing financing, and how do you ensure accurate cost estimation for these initiatives?
Tomar: The cost estimations are already in place. The budget has been determined collaboratively by the mayor’s office of Bakhmut, which will be built in Hoshcha.
We have a ballpark figure for the required amount. Still, we must contact investors, including the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the International Finance Corporation, and Export Development Canada, to determine their contributions.
This process is time-consuming, but we are actively working on it. We have the facilities, workforce, skilled personnel, and knowledge to build. The only piece that needs to be added is funding, which we are addressing.
That is why we are going to Ukraine in person—to meet with key individuals and discuss further. I am already communicating with the three primary entities funding many reconstruction projects in Ukraine.
Jacobsen: Van Horne Construction, Engineered Building Systems, and the Construction Innovation Solutions Lab are key players in your efforts. How do these entities collaborate to drive economic and infrastructure growth in Ukraine?
Tomar: FIABCI-Canada, where I am the Secretary-General, allows me to network globally from 70 different countries, and then I explore innovative technologies and solutions worldwide to adopt under the Construction Innovation Solutions Lab. I identify these innovations in various countries and bring them to Ebs Global.
At Ebs Global, we assess feasibility and determine how to adapt these technologies to the Canadian climate and the specific construction needs in Ukraine. Finally, we implement and build these projects under Van Horne Construction.
These three entities work synergistically: one focuses on research, another on engineering, and Van Hoorde takes charge of the building process.
Jacobsen: Energy infrastructure is a crucial component of modernization. How are you integrating advanced energy solutions into your reconstruction projects?
Tomar: We have yet to gain experience in that area.
Jacobsen: During the Toronto conference, did you meet potential partners who could play a pivotal role in advancing these efforts?
Tomar: I spoke with AECON, Canada’s largest civil construction company. They are pursuing a dam project and several other initiatives in Ukraine. We have reached a preliminary agreement to collaborate once they are on-site.
This is still in the early stages, but once we are there, we will meet again to explore how we can contribute to each other’s projects. We aim to collaborate with AECON and all companies entering Ukraine to provide our services.
Jacobsen: Were there any specific panels or speeches during the conference that resonated with your work and inspired new directions?
Tomar: Yes, many people I met there came from Ukraine and others from Canada, including representatives of the Canada-Ukraine Chamber of Commerce, such as President Zenon and Vice President Yuri, and the consular staff. They collaborate closely, and we share a mutual belief in integrity and teamwork.
We plan to work together. Leah from Export Development Canada has also been instrumental in this. She helps us by connecting us with underwriters. The conference in Toronto was very fruitful.
We attended a similar gathering in Warsaw, Poland, a couple of weeks ago with many of the same individuals. Tomorrow, I will meet with Stephen Lecce, the Minister of Energy for Ontario, whom I previously met in Poland and Toronto.
I am working to accelerate our efforts by leveraging our networks at different levels of government to contribute to rebuilding Ukraine. However, everything is still in the early stages.
We are working hard. We have plans, programs, knowledge, and experience. Now, we must assemble all the necessary elements to move forward.
Jacobsen: Workforce availability is critical for large-scale projects. How are you ensuring you have enough skilled labor, especially considering the local challenges?
Tomar: The priority is to employ veterans, the relatives of veterans from Ukraine, and other local people. If a labour shortage persists after that and we have exhausted local options, we can hire workers from Turkey. This is feasible because we are ending all our operations in Turkey and relocating our companies to Ukraine.
Jacobsen: In your view, what is the most significant obstacle to realizing these ambitious reconstruction plans?
Tomar: The only significant challenge for a company at our level, with our knowledge and experience, is securing funding. Our knowledge, tools, experience, workforce, and skilled workers are already in place. We utilize innovative technology and build creatively. Everything is ready to go. Funding is the only hurdle—there are no other significant obstacles.
Once we establish our companies in Ukraine before Christmas, we will become a valuable asset to other developers and builders arriving from countries like Germany, Denmark, Finland, and Italy.
We can provide services and sub-trades to those companies because, when they come, they may face bigger challenges than we do. Our extensive experience in various war zones in Turkey and 53 years of experience in Canada make us more equipped than any other company to build in Ukraine.
Under Ebs Global, we can offer exceptional services to builders and developers from other European countries. This is why we are committed to being present in Ukraine.
Jacobsen: Hypothetically, if the war were to end tomorrow and funding became available, how quickly could construction begin, and what would a realistic timeline for rebuilding Bakhmut look like?
Tomar: Whether the war stops or continues, it does not matter; we want to rebuild Ukraine now. We do not intend to wait until the war ends—we are ready to start building immediately. We can construct faster, more customizable, and more durable houses than other developers. We are not waiting for the war to end; we are prepared to begin at any time.
Housing, schools, and hospitals are urgent needs, and we want to address them now. Waiting is not an option.
Jacobsen: Construction technology has advanced significantly, including robotics and automation that can operate 24/7. How do you see these innovations impacting your projects in Ukraine?
Tomar: Yes, that is precisely what we have adopted. Our fully computerized system allows us to produce in three shifts, 24/7.
We manufacture walls, slabs, and trusses with zero waste and precision, ensuring every element is perfectly sized and segmented for the project. When feasible, we also integrate VR and artificial intelligence technologies. Many innovative software solutions are available, but we avoid using them if a technology is not adaptable to a specific area or project.
Sometimes, we need to combine traditional methods with new, innovative approaches. That’s why we can only apply a one-size-fits-all approach to some projects. It depends on each project’s specific requirements.
We know and integrated many of the technologies you describe. We are aware of these advancements, including proptech and contech systems. I have worked with companies across the globe, from Indonesia to Nigeria, Germany to Spain, and many other countries. Through my networking platform, the United Nations-affiliated FIABCI Canada, I collaborate with people eager to assist Ukraine worldwide. My role is to facilitate these efforts.
Jacobsen: Eastern Europe has a distinct architectural identity. How are you incorporating the aesthetics of Ukrainian architecture into your designs while meeting modern needs?
Tomar: Ebs Global focuses on providing the structural skeleton of buildings. We adapt to the architectural preferences and climate-specific requirements of every country, province, or state we work in.
For instance, Bakhmut’s architectural style differs from what we see in Toronto or Vancouver. When we work in Ukraine, we will adopt the local architectural style that suits their needs and culture.
The main component of any construction project is the structure, which we provide at a more affordable price. However, we do not impose North American architectural styles on Ukraine or Eastern Europe.
We build the structure and then integrate the local tastes, cultural preferences, and architectural styles to ensure the final product aligns with their unique identity.
Jacobsen: Large-scale global projects often face regulatory and logistical barriers. What country-specific challenges—such as economic conditions, regulations, or supply chain issues—have you encountered?
Tomar: We foresee no significant hurdles in this regard. Regarding Ukraine, we have a strong network of suppliers. We source materials like galvanized steel and other products from countries such as Turkey, Indonesia, Egypt, and Spain.
Additionally, we are adopting new technology in Germany to produce bricks and convert them into panels. With this extensive network, we do not anticipate issues with supply or collaboration.
Jacobsen: Durability is essential for the longevity of infrastructure. How vital are corrosion-resistant coatings and fire-resistant materials in achieving sustainable, long-lasting buildings?
Tomar: Our light-gauge steel products have longer lifespans than traditional materials. In North America, for example, houses typically last 50 to 70 years. With our materials, the lifespan extends up to 100 years.
Moreover, our products resist bugs and termites and do not rust. So, what more could you want? This approach represents a better way to build durable and sustainable structures.
Jacobsen: Yeah, that covers almost everything.
Tomar: Thank you very much.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): International Policy Digest
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/12/16
Leon Langdon joined Humanists International as an Advocacy Officer in September 2023. He brings a wealth of experience from his prior roles at the UN Security Council and in the NGO and education sectors. At Humanists International, he focuses on advancing the organization’s work at the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) and supporting member organizations in navigating UN human rights mechanisms, such as the Universal Periodic Review. Langdon holds a law degree from University College Dublin and a master’s in international relations from New York University.
In this interview, Langdon delves into pressing developments at the UNHRC, including the contentious non-renewal of Resolution 16/18 and the adoption of a resolution targeting the desecration of religious books. He highlights Humanists International’s advocacy to uphold freedom of religion or belief (FoRB) and freedom of expression while combating blasphemy laws that disproportionately target minorities and undermine human rights. Langdon underscores the importance of frameworks like the Rabat Plan of Action in addressing hate speech without eroding free expression.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Thank you for joining me, Leon. As an Advocacy Officer at Humanists International, you’re at the forefront of critical global issues. Let’s start with a broad question. How would you characterize recent UN Human Rights Council developments regarding efforts to combat religious hatred?
Langdon: The current trends are troubling. For context, over the years, there has been a consensus between the most significant actors in this arena: the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and the European Union (EU), which often acts on behalf of the West, including the United States.
These organizations have historically agreed on how best to balance the right to freedom of religion or belief with efforts to combat hatred based on religion or belief. This consensus was reflected in two parallel resolutions at the UN Human Rights Council: the EU-led resolution on FoRB and the OIC-led Resolution 16/18 on combating religious hatred. Both resolutions have been renewed annually since 2011, up until this year.
The trends you’re referring to include two key developments: the introduction of a resolution addressing the desecration of religious books and symbols in 2023, its attempted renewal in 2024, and the non-renewal of Resolution 16/18 in 2024. These actions are deeply concerning as they undermine what was a hard-fought consensus on countering hatred based on religion or belief. Achieving this consensus required many years of negotiation, substantial compromise, and significant effort among the world’s major actors.
Seeing this progress eroded is undoubtedly worrying for us at Humanists International.
Jacobsen: Humanists International has been vocal about its concerns regarding resolving the desecration of sacred books and religious symbols. Could you elaborate on the organization’s key apprehensions?
Langdon: In 2023, we raised several issues regarding this resolution. We voiced our concerns during the emergency debate called at the UN and in a joint letter with numerous other NGOs.
First, we highlighted that prohibiting the defamation of religion and protecting religious ideas, institutions, and symbols not only contravenes the guarantees of freedom of opinion and expression but is also prone to abuse—most often targeting religious minorities. Ironically, these minorities are often the very groups the resolution claims to protect. Second, we stressed the long-established distinction between criticism of religion or belief and attacks on individuals because they adhered to a particular religion or belief. This difference is crucial to maintain.
Third, we noted that equating the desecration of religious books and symbols with incitement to hatred is problematic. Such acts do not always constitute incitement, and this oversimplification disregards the need for a case-by-case approach. Resolution 16/18 and the Istanbul Process, including the Rabat Plan of Action’s six-part threshold test, provide a robust framework for determining whether an act constitutes incitement.
Ignoring this framework undermines years of work and legal clarity.
Jacobsen: Despite strong opposition, the resolution passed. In your view, why did it gain sufficient support?
Langdon: In my opinion, two factors played a role. The first is the broader geopolitical environment. This resolution was introduced in response to several incidents in Europe involving the burning of the Qur’an.
There was anger and shame about those incidents in certain states. The second factor was the assertion by the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation that this would be a one-time resolution. It was brought in during an emergency debate. At the time, there was no discussion that this resolution would be renewed or that its renewal would lead to the subsequent non-renewal of Resolution 16/18. Some states, especially given the political context at the time, could sympathize with the sentiment. This is evident in the failure to renew the resolution a second time, despite the OIC’s attempts.
Jacobsen: Humanists International has actively engaged in negotiations on religious tolerance. What has been the organization’s role in shaping these discussions?
Langdon: Broadly speaking, we are one of the UN’s only explicitly non-religious or humanist organizations, and that is a vital voice we bring to the table. Within that role, we work to champion the balance between freedom of religion or belief and freedom of expression. Additionally, we highlight how laws, such as blasphemy laws at the national level, can be used to undermine the rights of non-religious individuals and religious minorities.
Jacobsen: The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation often leads these resolutions. How does its approach differ from broader human rights principles?
Langdon: The OIC’s approach elevates religion, including religious books and symbols, to a pedestal, whereas international human rights law places the human being at the center. Religious books and symbols do not enjoy protections under international human rights law; people do. Moreover, these laws are often used to undermine human rights. Their subjective nature makes them prone to weaponization. This can take two primary forms.
Firstly, these laws are used to attack religious minorities who are expressing their freedom of religion or belief. In such cases, the majority in power often claims that the minority’s actions amount to blasphemy. This undermines their freedom of expression and violates their right to freedom of religion or belief.
Secondly, these laws are weaponized for political purposes. Accusations of blasphemy provide a convenient means for individuals to attack or undermine political opponents. Once an accusation is made, the state apparatus is often deployed against the accused, resulting in significant abuse of power.
Jacobsen: The annual resolution on combating religious hatred was withdrawn this year. What were the reasons behind this decision, and what does it signify?
Langdon: According to the OIC, Resolution 16/18 was withdrawn because Western countries had not done enough to combat hatred based on religion or belief. As I mentioned, this is a huge shame and part of the troubling trends we’ve discussed. Ultimately, it undermines the hard-fought consensus that had taken many years to achieve and had been in place for over a decade.
Jacobsen: Lobbying is a cornerstone of Humanists International’s advocacy. How have these efforts influenced the outcome of the renewed resolution?
Langdon: To my knowledge, we were the only NGO to speak during the informal consultations, the term used at the UN for negotiating resolutions. Our advocacy efforts were, therefore, particularly significant in shaping the discussion surrounding the renewal of this resolution.
As we have yet to receive a web link from the informal consultation organizers, we had to go to Geneva and speak in the room. During the session, we presented our case to the states, explaining why the resolution should not be renewed and why the OIC should return to Resolution 16/18. We also circulated a briefing document to over 100 states and received numerous supportive responses.
Building on this, we met with state representatives in Geneva, representing countries across several continents. We presented our position to them and addressed their questions and concerns. Because advocacy and lobbying are difficult to quantify regarding outcomes, it is challenging to attribute the resolution’s withdrawal to our efforts accurately.
However, we mobilized a substantial lobbying effort at short notice, and ultimately, the tabled resolution was indeed withdrawn. Regardless of directly attributing the outcome to our advocacy, we were pleased.
Jacobsen: Blasphemy laws remain a contentious issue in international human rights debates. What are the potential risks of reintroducing blasphemy language into UN resolutions?
Langdon: At the highest level, reintroducing blasphemy language into UN resolutions undermines the consensus I’ve mentioned several times about effectively countering hatred based on religion or belief. That consensus is not merely symbolic; it provides a framework for addressing religious hatred and incitement. It includes a six-part test under the Rabat Plan of Action for determining when incitement warrants criminalization and when it should be addressed through other means.
At another level, according to Humanists International’s latest research and the “Freedom of Thought Report,” 57% of the world’s population live in countries where blasphemy is punishable by law. These laws are inherently subjective and are often used to target religious minorities, including, though not exclusively, the non-religious.
Blasphemy laws violate individuals’ right to freedom of expression and infringe upon their right to freedom of religion or belief. While we and others lobby countries to repeal these harmful laws and raise awareness through initiatives like the “Freedom of Thought Report” and our advocacy at the UN, our efforts are undermined if governments can point to a UN Human Rights Council resolution that seems to support such laws.
This week, we were encouraged to learn that UN Secretary-General António Guterres cited our submission for his report on countering hatred based on religion or belief. In his report, Guterres underscored two critical points: first, that blasphemy laws are incompatible with international law, and second, the alternative mechanisms we outlined for addressing these issues. Such affirmations from the UN help our advocacy efforts far more than having a UN Human Rights Council resolution that contradicts these principles.
Jacobsen: Striking a balance between combating hate speech and safeguarding freedom of expression is a recurring challenge. What strategies or frameworks, such as the Rabat Plan of Action, offer practical solutions?
Langdon: We support and advocate for implementing the EU-led FoRB resolution and the OIC-led Resolution 16/18, along with their follow-up initiatives. Within this framework, we emphasize the importance of the Rabat Plan of Action’s six-part threshold test, which provides a clear structure for balancing freedom of expression with combating hate speech.
We also actively support and engage in measures that address hate speech without infringing on freedom of expression. For example, we champion educational initiatives, address the root causes of hate speech, and promote positive counter-speech strategies.
Jacobsen: Leon, thank you for the opportunity and your time today. I appreciate it.
Langdon: Of course.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): International Policy Digest
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/12/08
Gezahegn Mekonnen Demissie is an Ethiopian journalist, filmmaker, and advocate for immigrant voices whose work straddles continents and cultures. A founding member of PEN Ethiopia and the Executive Director of Bridge Entertainment, Demissie has made it his mission to amplify stories that matter. Now based in Toronto, Canada, he helms New Perspective አዲስ ቅኝት, a community journal and radio show-turned-podcast dedicated to fostering dialogue within the Ethiopian diaspora.
Since arriving in Canada in 2015, Demissie has chronicled the immigrant experience and delved deep into Ethiopia’s complex historical and political terrain. His first short documentary for CBC Short Docs, Tizita, was a collaborative effort with Canadian production houses Primitive Entertainment and Rhombus Media. Demissie’s contributions to journalism have earned him recognition, including the 2019 National Ethnic Press and Media Council of Canada Award and a 2021 Community Champion Award from Arif Varani, MP for Parkdale in High Park, Toronto.
In this interview, Demissie unpacks the enduring impact of Ethiopia’s political upheavals, tracing the scars left by Marxist regimes, ethnic federalism, and unrelenting internal conflict. From the collapse of the monarchy in 1974 to the tumultuous shifts of power in 2018, he examines the roles played by the Derg, the TPLF, and other factions in a narrative defined by war, famine, and dislocation. Against muted global attention, Demissie calls on the Ethiopian diaspora in Canada and beyond to advocate for meaningful solutions, urging Canadians to use their platforms to spotlight one of the world’s most urgent but overlooked crises.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: I’m speaking with Gezahegn Mekonnen Demissie from PEN Canada to explore the Ethiopian context. We aim to bring attention to the devastating and often overlooked mass killings that have occurred during the recent war—a topic largely unfamiliar to Canadian audiences.
Let’s begin by setting the stage. Could you provide a historical perspective on how the fall of the monarchy, the rise of military Marxism, and the collapse of the Soviet Union set the stage for the conflicts we see today in Ethiopia’s semi-autonomous regions?
Gezahegn Mekonnen Demissie: Ethiopian history is complex, connecting to significant historical events, even with references to Greek mythology, such as the story of Andromeda. Ethiopia is an ancient country, but this particular story begins with the fall of the monarchy in 1974.
Over the past 50 years, Ethiopia has experienced significant instability and turmoil. When the monarchy ended, a military group known as the Derg took power, proclaiming itself Marxist, and remained in control for 17 years. During this time, from 1974 to 1991, there was an intense civil war.
Interestingly, the rebel groups fighting against the Derg were also leftist and Marxist in their ideology. After 1974, no major political group in the country was unaffiliated with some form of Marxism.
These groups are often identified as Maoist, Stalinist, or aligned with other leftist ideologies. Still, they all shared a common ideological foundation. By 1991, the main rebel group, the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF), managed to seize central power. Eritrean rebels secured independence for Eritrea, making Ethiopia a landlocked country.
Today, Ethiopia’s population exceeds 130 million, making it one of the most populous countries in Africa, alongside Nigeria and Egypt. It is also the most populous landlocked country on the continent. After 1991, Ethiopia adopted an ethnic federal system, with the TPLF-led coalition, the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF), implementing this structure.
The TPLF-led government ruled through a divide-and-rule strategy, dividing regions along ethnic lines, which created an ethnically segmented system.
While apartheid was ending in South Africa, a system of ethnic federalism was taking root in Ethiopia. When the TPLF was removed from power in 2018 by a coalition led by Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed, they retreated to the Tigray region, where they maintained military strength.
The TPLF had substantial resources and diplomatic support from allied nations, which made them formidable. This eventually led to a conflict with the federal government, which mobilized resources from all over the country to confront the TPLF forces. But after one year of war, the result was the loss of more than 1,000,000 innocent civilians and soldiers from both sides.
Jacobsen: This is a fascinating yet challenging narrative for a Canadian audience, which often frames political developments through simpler binaries—sometimes shaped by American perspectives or broader ideological histories. We tend to associate post-colonial transitions with the gradual march toward democratic ideals. However, Ethiopia’s story diverges sharply with the rise of Marxist militarists and the imposition of systems akin to apartheid among its diverse ethnic groups. Could you unpack this dynamic?
Demissie: No. The Marxist group that took power in 1974 was different. Another Marxist group became a rebel force fighting the military Marxist group that had overthrown the monarchy. By the end of the Cold War in 1991, the rebel Marxist group succeeded in ousting the military Marxists and taking power. The global political landscape had changed, so they presented themselves as champions of democracy, attempting to establish a multi-party system—at least in rhetoric.
They portrayed this to the Western world to gain approval, claiming to adopt democratic ideals. However, in practice, they implemented an ethnic federal system. They enshrined it in the constitution, making it impossible to remove today. This ethnic federal system, which was established in 1991, is one of the main reasons the country is now at war with itself.
The same group that introduced this system later fought against the federal government. By 2018, the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF), which had been in power for nearly 30 years, faced internal conflict within its political coalition. The sentiment grew that it was time for them to relinquish power, as they were a minority holding control over political power, economic resources, and the military.
Jacobsen: Was there significant domestic or international pressure on the Marxist government to step down then?
Demissie: Yes. Other groups aimed to take power, leading to clashes and conflicts within the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF)—a coalition of four major parties from the Tigray, Amhara, Oromo, and Southern Nations. Eventually, the Oromo and Amhara factions aligned and pushed the TPLF out of central power, relegating them to their stronghold in Tigray province in the north. From there, the TPLF planned to regain control, which sparked the bloody war that claimed over a million lives.
Jacobsen: How pivotal has ethnic federalism been in fueling Ethiopia’s internal conflicts?
Demissie: Absolutely. Ethnic federalism is a primary factor in these conflicts. Ethiopia is unique because it avoided colonization and remained independent when European powers divided Africa at the Berlin Conference in 1884. The ethnic divisions entrenched in the federal system have fueled the ongoing ethnic and territorial conflicts.
Ethiopia successfully defended its territory from colonial invasions. However, the Italians returned in 1935 under Mussolini’s fascist regime. Still, they were ultimately defeated again, this time with the support of the British. That is history, and it shows that the Ethiopian people have always stood united against foreign aggression. There has never been successful foreign aggression in Ethiopian history.
Jacobsen: Ethiopia’s federal constitution, which divided the nation along ethnic lines, seems to have sown the seeds of discord. Do you believe this system, implemented by rebel Marxists, was an inevitable crisis waiting to unfold?
Demissie: The first Marxist group, or the military Marxist group that took power in 1974, officially declared Ethiopia a socialist state. They claimed the country the Socialist Republic of Ethiopia, clarifying their ideology. It aligned with the Soviet Union and other socialist countries during the Cold War, so their stance was purely ideological. They distanced Ethiopia from Western affiliations, even reducing diplomatic relations until the 1984 famine.
The 1984 famine claimed millions of lives and was widely publicized, including through the “We Are the World” concert by Michael Jackson and others, which raised funds for aid.
Jacobsen: The period also saw severe famine, driven by drought, reduced agricultural output, and crop failures. Could you elaborate on the pretext for this humanitarian catastrophe and its broader implications?
Demissie: It presented an opportunity for the Americans to re-enter the Ethiopian political scene. Until then, the military government had kept the Americans out, working exclusively with Soviet advisers. The country was run on a strict socialist ideology.
However, when the rebel group took power in 1991, socialism was nearly obsolete because the Soviet Union had collapsed. The new leaders couldn’t continue under the communist or socialist banner, so they needed something new to justify their rule. That justification was ethnicity. They adopted this system under the pretext of historical grievances.
Jacobsen: In these instances, scapegoating is often a universal tactic. How has this dynamic played out in Ethiopia’s political and ethnic struggles?
Demissie: They argued that Ethiopia’s ethnic groups had been subjugated and oppressed by one dominant group, the Amhara. The Amhara were blamed for much of what had happened in the country’s history, similar to how the Anglo-Saxons are sometimes viewed in Western history.
So they used the Amhara as a scapegoat and blamed them for all the country’s problems, turning them into the enemy of Ethiopia’s 80-plus ethnic groups. This ideology governed the country for the last 30 years. The current government, which took power in 2018, is led by Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed, who received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2019 for negotiating a peace process between Ethiopia and Eritrea.
Eritrea was once part of Ethiopia. After Eritrea became independent, another war broke out between the countries over UN-demarcated borders and political disputes. The TPLF in Ethiopia and the EPLF in Eritrea had fought against the military regime. However, when they became leaders of their respective countries, they went to war in 1998—a bloody conflict that lasted until 2000.
A United Nations peacekeeping mission was eventually established along the border, creating a buffer zone for over 20 years. In 2018, Prime Minister Abiy ended that “no war, no peace” situation and received the Nobel Peace Prize. Then, there was a claim that Donald Trump was involved. It was peculiar. During his first term as president, Trump claimed he brokered the peace deal, but Prime Minister Abiy received the Nobel Prize. Trump publicly stated that he should have received recognition for the peace agreement.
But in reality, Abiy Ahmed facilitated that peace. Despite the peace between Ethiopia and Eritrea, which led to renewed friendships between their communities in the diaspora, this peace was short-lived. The Tigray group initiated conflict again, resulting in a war that claimed over a million lives, adding to the devastation wrought during the previous 30 years of destabilization and division.
What concerns me deeply is why the world, including Canadian and Western media, has not paid attention to this bloody conflict. I feel everyone should be aware of it.
Jacobsen: Yes, we are all responsible.
Demissie: Thank you. We are all human, and Ethiopia, throughout its history, has fought against fascism, notably against the Italian fascists. It participated in the Korean War in 1950-1953, and the Ethiopian Kagnew Battalion was highly regarded during the Korean War. There is a statue commemorating them in Korea.
Ethiopia has also been a key player in fighting terrorism in East Africa—in Sudan and Somalia—and has supported peace processes in Rwanda and West African countries like Liberia. Ethiopia does not deserve to be ignored or abandoned by the world. The Ethiopian people have paid the price for global peace and humanity, and they should not be left out or overlooked.
But look at what’s happening now. The war continues. While the fighting in Tigray has been halted, there is still severe conflict in the Amhara and Oromia regions, with people dying every day. Famine and drought loom, and most young people go to war instead of plowing the land.
Jacobsen: Young people are fighting instead of farming, which is a serious issue.
Demissie: Child soldiers have become a common sight, which is deeply concerning. This situation requires urgent attention and emphasis. The regional political situation is dynamic, involving neighboring countries like Somalia and Egypt due to the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD).
Significant tension has been between Egypt and Ethiopia over the dam built on the Nile River. The country is torn apart by internal and external political issues, requiring careful handling. Ethiopia has 130 million people, so if it disintegrates, the resulting human crisis could spread globally and become uncontrollable.
Jacobsen: Beyond the historical causes, young people are now fighting instead of farming, exacerbating the crisis. Looking at the present, what are the major flashpoints—politically, ethnically, and provincially? Where are the weapons coming from, and which regions are most vulnerable to famine?
Demissie: The most serious conflicts now involve the Fano militia in the Amhara region and the federal government, the Oromo Liberation Army (OLA), and the federal government. These two regions, Amhara and Oromiya, are the most populous in the country. The Amhara region accounts for about 24.1% of Ethiopia’s population, while the Oromiya region comprises nearly 35.8%.
Jacobsen: And the conflict has been ongoing for over two years now?
Demissie: Yes, for more than three years in these regions. The continuous fighting prevents young people from engaging in productive activities like farming, which results in economic stagnation and food shortages. If this continues, a disaster is inevitable. Weapons are entering the country through various channels due to open borders. Ethiopia shares a long border with Sudan, which is currently unstable. This makes it easy for arms to be smuggled from Sudan into Ethiopia. The border with Somalia is also porous because Ethiopian soldiers are fighting alongside Amhara and Oromo forces, leaving an insufficient workforce to secure the entire country. It’s a loose, fluid situation.
Another challenge, Ethiopia is landlocked, while Somalia has a significant outlet to the Indian Ocean. This geographical factor adds tension to the complex relationship between the two countries. Ethiopia is pursuing a memorandum of understanding with Somaliland, to secure access to the sea. However, the central government in Somalia is not pleased with this arrangement, which has created tension in the region and could potentially lead to another conflict. The situation is highly complex.
While this unfolds, Western and Eastern powers remain focused on conflicts in the Middle East and Europe, neglecting this part of the world. This is concerning from a peace and collective security standpoint.
Jacobsen: This conflict has now dragged on for more than two years. What efforts have been made toward international resolutions through entities like the United Nations or other peacekeeping forces? Has any humanitarian intervention been akin to the long-standing UNRWA aid in Palestine?
Demissie: No, not in the same way. There was support in the past from organizations like UNHCR, UNICEF, and the World Food Programme (WFP) to provide aid in war-affected areas like Tigray and other provinces. However, this time, it’s much more difficult. United Nations workers have been killed while performing their duties, making it challenging for them to provide support. They are doing their best to help, but as the crisis expands and affects more regions of the country, it becomes increasingly challenging to meet the need. Countries may pledge support but often must follow through, as their priorities are focused elsewhere. While humanitarian aid exists, more is needed to address the problem’s scale. The support available does not match the severity of the situation.
Jacobsen: How has the Ethiopian government managed—or failed to manage—this escalating crisis?
Demissie: The United Nations and the World Food Programme have accused the government of using aid as a weapon of war by cutting supplies. Additionally, some of the warring groups, particularly in Tigray, have been caught selling food meant for humanitarian aid outside the country, leaving their people to suffer under their leadership. The level of corruption is severe, and there is currently no effective law enforcement body. The country is verging on a stateless situation, with the central government maintaining control only in the capital and some major cities. Various warring groups and militias control the rest of the country.
Yet, the media seems to project an image of control and productivity. They claim control, producing millions of tons of food, but it’s just propaganda. The reality is quite different—like trying to fill half a gun with empty promises. The situation remains dire.
Jacobsen: Canadians focus on conflicts that are closer to their economic or geopolitical interests, such as Ukraine-Russia or Israel-Palestine. That perspective is understandable, but what should Canadians remember about staying engaged with global crises like Ethiopia’s, where they might influence change as voters?
Demissie: Close to 100,000 Ethiopian Canadians live in Canada, an important point. They are good citizens who love this country, myself included. We fled from the same rebel groups that ruled Ethiopia for 30 years and eventually silenced dissenting voices and the media. Canada offered us refuge during those difficult times, and now we are citizens and taxpayers here. We need dedication from our leaders and fellow Canadians.
It is not an obligation but a question of humanity. Canada has a long history of standing for humanitarian causes. Now, I am asking Canadian society and leaders to understand the suffering of the Ethiopian diaspora community. Many members of this community are experiencing great distress due to the situation in Ethiopia. They cannot stop the war or protect their loved ones, who are often forced to flee their homes, which various warring groups destroy.
This harsh reality deeply affects the psychological and emotional well-being of the Ethiopian diaspora, making it challenging for them to remain as productive as other citizens. I urge Canadians to recognize the severity of this crisis, show empathy, and utilize media and democratic platforms to raise awareness about the situation in Ethiopia.
I am reminded of a time when the entire Western world united in support of Ethiopia, as seen during the “We Are the World” concert for famine relief led by Michael Jackson and others.
So why the silence now, when the crisis is even more dire? That is my question. Have we changed our values or lost faith in humanity? Are we no longer the same compassionate society we once were, or do we still hold those core principles as Canadians?
We must leverage our influence to shed light on the tragedies unfolding in Ethiopia and beyond, including in countries like Sudan.
Jacobsen: Finally, what message would you like Canadians to take away from Ethiopia’s ongoing crisis and its potential role in fostering a more informed global perspective?
Demissie: So, I ask my Canadian friends, fellow Canadians, and everyone living in Canada to understand the situation and do whatever they can to help.
Jacobsen: Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
Demissie: Thank you so much, Scott, for giving me the chance.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): International Policy Digest
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/12/06
Andrew Sliwa is the Managing Director of Custom Prototypes, a Toronto-based company that blends cutting-edge design with precision fabrication in various industries.
Under his leadership, the company has gained international recognition, notably clinching the Advanced Finishing category at the 2018 AMUG Technical Competition with a stunningly accurate recreation of a Praetorian Guard helmet. Since its modest beginnings in 1995, when just two employees crafted handmade prototypes, Custom Prototypes has become a leader in advanced 3D printing technologies.
Sliwa’s dedication to innovation and quality has firmly established the firm’s reputation in the prototyping world.
Amid the ongoing war in Ukraine, his team has pivoted to developing state-of-the-art drones tailored for military applications, prioritizing extended range and AI-driven functionality. Beyond his technological ventures, Sliwa has become an outspoken voice on Canada’s defense spending, emphasizing the vital role of equipment manufacturing in supporting Ukraine’s resistance and highlighting technology’s transformative potential in shaping warfare’s future.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: To begin, could you share your name and the position you hold?
Andrew Sliwa: I manage Custom Prototypes based in Etobicoke, Ontario. I run a service bureau specializing in product development. We are a small manufacturing facility utilizing various short-run production processes, such as 3D printing, CNC machining, plastic vacuum forming, and more.
Since the war in Ukraine began, we decided to contribute to the war effort. We recognized that we were in a good position to develop drones.
Jacobsen: Given the situation in Ukraine and the expanding role of drone technology, how critical do you think it is to develop drones with extended range and increased payload capacities?
Sliwa: Drone warfare is fundamentally changing the battlefield. Drones have become incredibly effective tools. Most drones we see today are commercial models modified to carry payloads.
Operators can locate and destroy targets with FPV goggles. However, FPV drones typically have a limited range—they can travel up to about 20 kilometers, but maintaining a video link restricts their operational range.
Jacobsen: Is using drones as signal relays to amplify their operational range technically viable? What are the limitations and possibilities of this approach?
Sliwa: There have been attempts to use relay stations to extend drone range. However, this method has practical limitations.
For this purpose, we are developing a fixed-wing drone designed for longer distances and higher payloads. The technology we are integrating includes an AI chip programmed with flight loops and a target area map. This technology compares the map with real-time imagery from the onboard camera.
This makes the drone nearly independent of GPS and pilot input, which means it cannot be easily jammed. Additionally, flying at low altitudes makes it challenging to detect and intercept. This drone can cover distances of up to 200 kilometres.
It is primarily designed as a one-way attack drone, meaning it does not return. However, it can also be used for reconnaissance missions if needed. That’s the concept behind it.
Jacobsen: Your drones, which can travel up to 200 kilometers while carrying heavier payloads, clearly offer advanced capabilities. Could you elaborate on their costs and the specific advantages they offer over other models?
Sliwa: I do not want to discuss the cost of this drone because we are not at the point where we can accurately price it. Drones of this class, fully equipped with electronics and motors, typically cost around $100,000. Historically, these drones were developed as targets for military use, primarily for anti-aircraft defence training.
However, in Ukraine, drones of this kind are being repurposed to fly deep into Russian territory to destroy ammunition depots and other critical infrastructure. They sometimes launch 100 to 300 drones simultaneously, knowing that many will be intercepted by anti-aircraft systems or jammed.
The costs of deploying 300 drones are significant, but the potential payoff—such as destroying an ammunition depot the size of a city—is far greater than the cost of the drones.
Jacobsen: Shortly after the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, on March 2nd, the United Nations General Assembly convened an emergency session. During this meeting, Resolution A/ES-11/1 was passed, strongly condemning Russia’s actions and calling for the withdrawal of troops from all occupied territories in Ukraine. How do you interpret the significance of this resolution in shaping global solidarity with Ukraine?
Sliwa: Wow, and you remember all that.
Jacobsen: The resolution received overwhelming support—141 votes in favor against only five opposed, with abstentions aside. Nations like North Korea, which eventually sent troops to support Russia, stood in opposition. The global response highlights a near-universal consensus backing Ukraine. For countries not aligned with this sentiment, are they, in your view, isolating themselves from the dominant international ethos? How does Canada’s role, largely providing financial and material support, exemplify this alignment?
Sliwa: That’s accurate. There’s a common belief that Canada sends money, but that’s incorrect. Canada sends equipment manufactured in Canada. The funds allocated go to Canadian companies that produce this equipment, which is then shipped to Ukraine. We don’t send cash alone; we send valuable equipment instead.
Jacobsen: Yes, I wouldn’t want to oversimplify it by saying Canadians give money—money alone isn’t a weapon you can fire.
Sliwa: That’s correct.
Jacobsen: For Canadians seeking clarity, what’s the simplest way to illustrate how their financial support contributes to practical outcomes in the war? Specifically, could you detail how such funds are helping manufacture affordable, locally produced Ukrainian defense equipment and why that approach matters?
Sliwa: Wow, that’s a political question. All decisions in support of Ukraine are political and based on debates and discussions. How much we allocate to defence has been a topic of debate for a long time. Canada doesn’t even meet its NATO spending commitments. As NATO members, we are supposed to allocate 2% of our GDP to defence.
So, 2%, but we are only at about 1.4%. Among NATO countries, we are among the lowest contributors. Most NATO countries pay their share, but Canada does not.
We feel secure simply being next to the United States and assume they will defend us if something happens. However, we fail to recognize that we share a border with Russia. Russia even planted a flag under the North Pole, claiming it as Russian territory.
How concerning is that? They claim the North Pole as their territory, yet we neglect our military. It doesn’t seem to be a priority for Canada, which is unpleasant.
Jacobsen: Thank you for your time, Andrew.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): International Policy Digest
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/12/05
Anna Mysyshyn stands at the crossroads of law, technology, and global governance—a Ukrainian legal scholar whose expertise in AI policy, cybersecurity, and digital governance places her at the vanguard of some of today’s most pressing challenges. With a Ph.D. in Law from Ivan Franko Lviv National University and an LL.M. in Innovation, Technology, and Law from the University of Edinburgh, Anna’s academic credentials are as impressive as her practical achievements.
As the Director and Co-Founder of the Institute of Innovative Governance, she leads transformative initiatives to foster digital inclusion and ensure secure transitions to digital landscapes. Her career spans international platforms, from working with the United Nations and UNDP in Ukraine to serving as a fellow in the Canadian Parliament. Most recently, as a research fellow at the German Marshall Fund of the United States, Anna has focused on the cutting-edge application of advanced technologies in the war in Ukraine—adding a timely and poignant dimension to her already remarkable career.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: AI has rapidly transformed the landscape of propaganda. How is this technological evolution reshaping its use in today’s political and social contexts?
Anna Mysyshyn: Focusing on the Ukrainian situation, the rapid advancement of AI technologies has significantly enhanced the ability to generate and disseminate disinformation and propaganda on a massive scale and at unprecedented speed. The advent of generative AI, deepfakes, and voice-cloning technologies has dramatically transformed the landscape of information warfare and general information dissemination.
Emerging technologies, particularly generative AI, are widely utilized in informational warfare to spread propaganda and disinformation. Russia, for instance, deploys false narratives through highly sophisticated and interconnected networks. These networks include AI-generated content disseminated via traditional state-controlled media, social media platforms, and other technological mediums. Despite being a country with significant economic challenges, Russia has capitalized on these technologies to amplify its influence.
Jacobsen: Do these emerging forms of information warfare offer a cost-effective strategy for states or other actors?
Mysyshyn: This represents a relatively low-cost but highly impactful form of warfare. Before its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Russia had already invested over $9 billion in propaganda campaigns, primarily using digital platforms and traditional media outlets like newspapers. However, with the emergence of technologies such as generative AI, especially after the boom in AI platforms like OpenAI in 2022, propaganda has evolved into a hybrid format.
This modern approach combines traditional media with advanced AI tools to confuse audiences, erode trust, and manipulate public perception of political figures and situations. By employing generative AI, propaganda becomes not only faster and cheaper to produce but also more convincing and harder to detect, posing a significant threat to information integrity and democratic resilience.
What makes this even more concerning is the scalability of AI-driven propaganda. With tools capable of generating thousands of variations of the same disinformation narrative, actors like Russia can target specific demographics with tailored messaging. These campaigns exploit existing social and political divisions, creating a ripple effect that destabilizes societies.
A critical challenge today is detecting AI-generated propaganda. These hybrid methods show that AI technologies are not only accessible but also more persuasive to the general public.
Jacobsen: In terms of impact, how effective are these AI-driven tools? Do they lead to significant shifts in public opinion, or are their effects more subtle and insidious?
Mysyshyn: AI technologies enable Russian propagandists to craft highly targeted and emotionally charged narratives that are difficult to differentiate from authentic content. Platforms such as TikTok, often viewed as harmless entertainment spaces, are increasingly used to spread harmful disinformation. This is particularly effective because many people consume information on social media without fact-checking tools or sufficient media literacy skills to verify what they encounter.
Since people are inclined to trust the information they read or see in the media and are often unaware of the extent to which AI can fabricate content, the impact of disinformation becomes even more significant. This highlights the urgent need for enhanced fact-checking resources and improved media literacy to counter the rising influence of AI-driven propaganda.
Unfortunately, people often believe everything they see and read due to low media literacy skills. Russia understands this and is increasingly disseminating information using a mixed approach. They combine real, factual information with AI-generated, fake narratives. This combination easily confuses individuals because they may read one publication that contains truthful information but then encounter a second one – AI-generated and presenting a false narrative, which they might also perceive as true. This mix of techniques makes it easier to mislead individuals lacking media literacy or fact-checking skills.
The effectiveness of these tools lies in their dual impact, combining immediate and long-term effects. In the short term, they can change public perception, especially when deployed during war or political instability. Fabricated videos or AI-generated “official” statements can rapidly erode trust in public institutions, fuel polarization, or incite unrest. However, their more insidious and enduring impact becomes evident over time. Disinformation campaigns work gradually to weaken societal cohesion, erode trust in democratic institutions, and amplify social divisions.
The cumulative effect is that the public becomes increasingly confused and skeptical of all information sources, fostering an environment where truth is devalued and irrelevant.
Jacobsen: You referenced generational differences and AI tools tailored to these variations. Could you delve deeper into what sets these apart?
Mysyshyn: Yes, indeed. Media literacy skills are critical core competencies, especially in generational differences and the rise of generative AI tools. As AI technologies become more sophisticated and accessible, the ability to critically evaluate and verify information is essential for navigating the modern media landscape.
For younger generations, who are digital natives, media literacy involves understanding how algorithms and AI shape the content they encounter on platforms like TikTok, Instagram, or YouTube. Many are unaware that tailored content is designed to capture attention and provoke emotional responses. Teaching them to question authenticity and recognize manipulation is vital for building resilience against disinformation.
For older generations, media literacy requires addressing their trust in traditional media formats. This demographic is particularly vulnerable to AI-generated content mimicking authoritative sources, such as deepfake videos or fabricated news articles. Developing their ability to identify such fabrications is crucial to countering the spread of false narratives.
What’s particularly concerning is how generative AI tools exploit the unique habits of each generation. Younger audiences are targeted through short, visually engaging content on social media, while older audiences are influenced by AI-driven material that reinforces existing trust in traditional media. Addressing these tailored approaches requires generationally nuanced media literacy strategies to equip all individuals with the tools to discern fact from fiction.
Jacobsen: What distinguishes misinformation from disinformation, particularly in their intent and impact?
Mysyshyn: Disinformation refers to deliberately false or misleading information spread to deceive or manipulate, while misinformation is incorrect information shared without malicious intent. For example, Russian propaganda often uses disinformation to manipulate public opinion by spreading false narratives about the war in Ukraine. However, misinformation can also occur when individuals with low media literacy or even major media outlets share misleading content without fact-checking. In both cases, spreading false information can have harmful effects, even if the intent differs.
Jacobsen: In what ways should information warfare be conceptualized as a legitimate form of modern warfare?
Mysyshyn: Information warfare is a form of warfare because it targets societal trust, cohesion, and decision-making processes, often intending to destabilize or weaken an adversary. While it lacks the physical devastation of traditional warfare, its effects can be equally profound, especially in highly polarized or vulnerable societies. AI technologies have amplified these impacts, transforming information warfare into a sophisticated tool for manipulation and disruption.
In a paper I wrote for the German Marshall Fund, I examined how Russia has weaponized generative AI, deepfakes, and voice-cloning technologies to erode trust, destabilize Ukraine, and influence international perceptions of the war.
For example, AI-generated deepfake videos, such as one depicting President Volodymyr Zelensky announcing Ukraine’s surrender – spread rapidly on social media and caused widespread confusion, even after being debunked. Similarly, altered audio tracks using voice-cloning tools have been employed to create fake messages from Ukrainian leaders, sowing discord and demoralization.
These disinformation campaigns are designed to weaken Ukraine internally and undermine international support, particularly from Western allies. By spreading manipulative narratives, such as fabricated stories of corruption, inefficiency, or infighting, they seek to create skepticism abroad about the legitimacy and effectiveness of Ukrainian leadership.
This erosion of trust can reduce public support for aid and military assistance, which is vital for Ukraine’s defense efforts. Information warfare’s objectives align with traditional military goals, which are to weaken the enemy and disrupt their strategies.
Jacobsen: What strategies should democratic societies adopt to counter these evolving threats effectively?
Mysyshyn: Democratic societies can address the threat of AI-driven information warfare through a multifaceted approach that includes education, technology, policy, and collaboration. Public education, particularly media literacy, must equip individuals with the skills to recognize and counter disinformation.
In 2023, our Institute of Innovative Governance developed a guide and conducted lectures on AI and disinformation at leading Ukrainian universities. Initiatives like StopFake, Nota Yenota, and various government-led programs have strengthened Ukraine’s efforts to build media literacy and societal resilience. These programs emphasize core critical thinking strategies, such as questioning sources, verifying information, and analyzing biases, which are essential in helping individuals navigate the modern information landscape.
Developing trust in media is equally critical. Societies must support independent journalism and fact-checking initiatives that prioritize transparency and accountability. For example, Detector Media has played a vital role in Ukraine, fostering trust by exposing disinformation and providing verified reliable news. Similarly, public awareness campaigns must focus on promoting trustworthy media outlets and encouraging audiences to engage critically with the content they consume. Trust in media is a cornerstone of societal cohesion, especially during war or political instability.
Investing in advanced detection tools is another crucial step. Ukrainian organizations such as Osavul and Let’s Data, Mantis Analytics, and international companies like Originality.ai and OpenOrigins have played key roles in developing technologies to detect and debunk deepfakes and AI-generated propaganda quickly and effectively. These tools counter disinformation campaigns that exploit emerging technologies to spread fabricated narratives designed to mislead or destabilize.
By combining media literacy, critical thinking, trust-building in media, and cutting-edge technological solutions, democratic societies can build resilience against the growing threat of AI-driven information warfare. Ukraine’s proactive approach demonstrates how these strategies can be implemented effectively to protect domestic and international audiences from manipulation.
Jacobsen: How are autocratic regimes leveraging these technologies to pose new and unique challenges to the free world?
Mysyshyn: Well, these regimes exploit technological innovations to wage information warfare, conduct cyberattacks, and surveil populations both domestically and abroad, creating significant risks for open societies. Russia has weaponized AI to create and disseminate deepfakes, voice clones, and other forms of fabricated content.
Autocratic regimes also pose a technological challenge by exporting surveillance tools to suppress dissent and monitor citizens. China, for instance, has developed sophisticated facial recognition surveillance systems that track individuals’ movements, online behavior, and even emotional responses. These tools are being exported to other autocratic states, enabling a global spread of authoritarian control mechanisms that undermine freedoms and human rights.
Cyberattacks are another dimension of this threat. Autocracies increasingly use advanced cyber capabilities to target critical infrastructure in democracies, including energy grids, financial systems, and public health databases. The United States, Europe and other democracies face a dual challenge: protecting their values while countering autocracies’ misuse of emerging technologies.
Jacobsen: Could these same technologies be harnessed to empower dissenters and dissidents within authoritarian regimes?
Mysyshyn: Yes, these technologies can empower dissenters and dissidents in less free countries by providing tools for secure communication, spreading information, and documenting abuses. They also play an increasingly important role in accountability and justice, particularly in wartime scenarios. Technologies based on blockchain provide a decentralized and tamper-proof means of recording evidence of human rights abuses.
Additionally, AI-enhanced tools can assist in verifying, categorizing, and securely storing such data. Communication platforms such as Signal, powered by advanced encryption technologies, have become lifelines for activists and defenders. To maximize the empowering potential of these technologies, democratic societies and international organizations must support secure, open-source tools, invest in training for activists, and push back against the misuse of technology by authoritarian regimes. These efforts and ongoing innovation can help level the playing field for dissenters fighting for freedom.
Jacobsen: Finally, in the face of blatant and absurd narratives—like labeling Ukraine’s Jewish president as a neo-Nazi—what tools and resources does Ukraine need most urgently to counter such misinformation?
Mysyshyn: Ukraine needs a comprehensive strategy to combat misinformation, combining technological innovation, public education, media collaboration, and international support. The sheer absurdity of certain disinformation only highlights its manipulative intent and potential to mislead, regardless of how outrageous it may seem.
These narratives often exploit preexisting biases, emotional responses, and gaps in media literacy, making them surprisingly effective. Once again, this emphasizes the crucial need for critical thinking and diligent fact-checking – because, in a world saturated with disinformation, questioning the narrative is not just a skill but a responsibility.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Anna.
Mysyshyn: You’re very welcome! It was a pleasure. Thank you for your time as well.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): International Policy Digest
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/11/29
Oleksandr Kalitenko, a Ukrainian legal expert, stands out as a pioneering figure in the fight against corruption. One of only three Ukrainians awarded a government grant to study in Lithuania, Kalitenko pursued a graduate degree in European Union and International Law. His academic journey began with a specialization in Commercial Law and culminated in a master’s thesis supervised by the head of Lithuania’s Constitutional Court.
Kalitenko’s international legal training extends beyond academia. He gained practical experience at a leading Swedish law firm that twice earned the prestigious British Legal Awards for the best European law office. His résumé is also enriched by voluntary work and a deep commitment to public service, including researching whistleblower protections across the European Union. His findings informed recommendations for Transparency International Latvia and an expert group led by Latvia’s prime minister, shaping the groundwork for future whistleblower legislation.
Between 2014 and 2018, Kalitenko spearheaded grassroots campaigns such as “They Would Not Be Silent,” which aimed to dismantle public stigma against anti-corruption activists and promote a culture of accountability. This work earned him a European Union grant and further cemented his role as a thought leader in transparency and governance.
Kalitenko’s influence extends into Ukraine’s evolving legal landscape. Since 2014, he has been crucial in drafting and advocating anti-corruption legislation, often amid immense political and social challenges. He has lectured widely, coordinated volunteers, and co-authored studies on Ukraine’s burgeoning anti-corruption ecosystem. His insights on asset declaration, conflicts of interest, and governmental transparency resonate at national and international forums.
Currently serving as a legal adviser at Transparency International Ukraine, Kalitenko is at the forefront of efforts to reform Ukraine’s anti-corruption infrastructure amid the turmoil of war. He underscores the importance of building robust institutions from the ground up, citing Ukraine’s distinct reform trajectory and significant achievements in public procurement and asset declaration—areas where, remarkably, it has outpaced some European Union countries. Despite setbacks, such as delays in establishing the High Anti-Corruption Court, Kalitenko remains optimistic about Ukraine’s zero-tolerance approach to corruption and its capacity for transformative change.
For Kalitenko, the path forward lies in maintaining momentum, fostering international partnerships, and addressing systemic challenges head-on. His vision reflects hope and a determination to see Ukraine emerge stronger, more transparent, and more just—a model for other nations grappling with corruption.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: As a legal adviser at Transparency International Ukraine, your work spans anti-corruption and commercial law, mainly focusing on international legal frameworks. You completed a thesis in Lithuania analyzing the responsibilities of states and international organizations for wrongful acts. Can you walk us through the key findings of your research and how they inform your current anti-corruption efforts?
Oleksandr Kalitenko: That was a crucial part of my master’s thesis, which was the final stage of my program at Vilnius University in Lithuania. They offer an LLM program focused on International and European Union law. I chose this topic because I was interested in comparing the responsibilities of states and international organizations.
I selected one of my professors, who later became the head of Lithuania’s Constitutional Court. At that time, he was my professor in international organizations, so it was a logical choice to have him as my thesis supervisor. My research was exciting because I began by examining how the United Nations responded to international crises, such as the wars in the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s.
Unsurprisingly, some international organizations could have responded better to crises. History seems to be repeating itself, as we saw recently with António Guterres’s visit to Russia and his meeting with Vladimir Putin, a wanted war criminal. Even while working on my thesis, I observed that international organizations often failed to respond adequately to crises, which influenced my decision to pursue my current career.
After completing my studies in Lithuania, I decided to volunteer for Transparency International because non-governmental organizations are often more effective than bureaucratic government bodies. It was a natural decision for me. I started as a volunteer and intern at Transparency International Ukraine in 2014, following a successful internship with Transparency International Latvia in Riga. I chose the Baltic because I was very interested in how these post-Soviet states became successful members of the European Union, NATO, Schengen area, etc., and what needs to be done in Ukraine to follow a similar path.
During my internship in Latvia, I began researching international best practices for whistleblower protection. This interest originated from my master’s thesis, where I noted that whistleblowers often spoke out about issues within international organizations. Still, their concerns were not met with proper responses. This led me to collect information for the new whistleblower protection law in Latvia, which was under development in 2013.
Whistleblower protection wasn’t a prominent issue in Ukraine then, particularly during Viktor Yanukovych’s rule. Therefore, I chose to focus on the Latvian model and worked as part of a team to contribute to developing whistleblower protection frameworks.
The Latvian prime minister headed it, and the goal of this working group was to collect all the international best practices and recommendations to draft a strong whistleblower protection law in Latvia. Later, I can say that my future work—I’ve been working for Transparency International for 10 years, currently with the Ukrainian chapter—has been very much connected with whistleblower protection and anti-corruption prevention. I believe it is far more effective to protect whistleblowers through legislation than to be a typical lawyer who can only protect one client at a time. For example, fighting for good laws that protect many people, including whistleblowers, is much better.
That was the conclusion of my master’s thesis: I want to protect as many people as possible. In addition to whistleblower protection, I work on legal issues related to asset declarations and conflict-of-interest prevention and the analysis of international best practices in anti-corruption measures and policies. I’m also involved in the CPI (Corruption Perceptions Index) analysis. Transparency International releases this study annually. Part of my expertise is analyzing trends in martial law, corruption, and what we observe in our CPI studies.
Jacobsen: What were the most significant findings from your research on whistleblower laws across EU countries?
Kalitenko: The EU has a directive on whistleblower protection related to reporting breaches of EU law. This year, another directive was adopted to combat what’s known as SLAPPs (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation), used to harass whistleblowers. In such cases, companies with large legal teams or even government-influenced organizations might start legal proceedings against whistleblowers to distract them from their reporting by burdening them with lawsuits.
The European Union now has these two directives. We’ve researched the implementation of the first directive on whistleblower protection for breaches of EU law. Unfortunately, the implementation has not been ideal. Some countries missed the deadline set by the EU for integrating the directive’s provisions into their national laws.
Sadly, some countries introduced draft laws that were not fully aligned with the EU directive. This wasn’t very helpful because the EU had set good standards with this directive, especially when it was introduced five years ago. But again, the real issue is the question of implementation.
There has been some progress, and the situation is better than it once was. However, Transparency International conducted research that revealed almost every country still needs to fully implement the EU directive on whistleblower protection, even five years after its adoption. So, again, it could be a better result. I had higher expectations, but this may reflect a lack of political will to adopt it properly.
Jacobsen: Shifting to Ukraine, what unique challenges do whistleblowers face, particularly under the updated legislation passed before the full-scale war with Russia?
Kalitenko: Before the war with Russia, we updated the law on whistleblower protection. Unfortunately, some provisions of this law had gaps that still needed to be addressed.
One such gap, for example, is that only corruption whistleblowers are protected in Ukraine. This does not align with the EU directive, which provides a broader definition of whistleblowers. Whistleblowers reporting on human rights violations, transport safety, food safety, or medical equipment safety should be protected, not just those reporting corruption. But currently, the law only protects people who report corruption, and this issue needs to be fixed.
Another issue is that some forms of protection exist only on paper. For example, the law provides for psychological assistance and support for whistleblowers. However, this exists only in theory, as no proper system has been established to offer real psychological support. Another issue involves the unified portal for whistleblowers and their reports.
This portal was created last year as a user-friendly platform, a one-stop window for whistleblowers to report potential wrongdoing. However, we have found that it lacks sufficient anonymity and confidentiality measures to protect whistleblowers in line with international best practices. This is another area that needs improvement, and the portal is currently administered by Ukraine’s National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP). We have submitted recommendations on what needs to be fixed in the portal and are working with them to address these issues.
There are other concerns as well. For instance, whistleblowers who disclose state secrets are not protected, nor are those who expose minor corruption.
The law also covers whistleblowers and their close relatives, but it does not protect those who assist whistleblowers. According to the EU directive, such individuals should be covered as well. Of course, we also have recommendations from the OECD and other international organizations. Still, some significant issues remain with whistleblower protection in Ukraine.
Jacobsen: During the “They Would Not Be Silent” campaign, you sought to reshape public attitudes toward corruption and whistleblowers. What were some of the most challenging obstacles you encountered in running that campaign?
Kalitenko: We launched that campaign in 2015. It was needed because of the post-Soviet attitude toward whistleblowers. People often referred to whistleblowers as “snitches,” implying that they were not good citizens because they exposed wrongdoing that should have been kept silent. So, we tried to change this perception with the help of donors, partners from advertising agencies, and companies like McDonald’s, KFC, and some cinema theatres that aired our video campaign.
We depicted the moral authorities of the Ukrainian nation. These figures are shown in our currency, the hryvnia, and the banknotes. These individuals are famous writers and moral figures studied in schools, teaching young people about values and what is right and wrong. The campaign showed these figures with their mouths closed by rubber bands, conveying that these moral authorities would not remain silent in the face of corruption. We wanted to create an association for average Ukrainians with these figures, showing that they, too, should not be silent when they witness corruption.
We launched this campaign when sociological data showed that only about 30% of Ukrainians were willing to report corruption. This was a very limited number, and we wanted to raise it, moving closer to Western societies, where 90-95% of people declare that they would report wrongdoing.
We consulted psychologists, who explained that it would likely take about 15 years to change such attitudes and perceptions about whistleblowers in society. This is a big issue, and it won’t change with just one or two campaigns, even if they are nationwide. So, we started this campaign and continued similar efforts in the following years.
I was proud of the results of these campaigns. We surveyed whether the average Ukrainian had seen our advertisements and what they thought about them. Of course, the war has accelerated the process, but according to the latest survey data, 81% of Ukrainians are now ready to become whistleblowers and report corruption.
Jacobsen: Campaigns like this often aim to shift public perceptions. With 81% of Ukrainians now expressing a willingness to act as whistleblowers, how has your work influenced this shift in attitudes toward anti-corruption efforts?
Kalitenko: We’ve had to combat certain perceptions among Ukrainians. For instance, in our later campaigns, we addressed the common belief that if a corrupt official steals money from the budget, many Ukrainians saw the state budget as an abstract concept, not something concrete or connected to their lives.
One of our campaigns aimed to show Ukrainians that they directly contribute to the state budget through their taxes. Even if they don’t realize it, they pay taxes when they go to the grocery store and buy food because we have a VAT (value-added tax). This was an important message, as many people didn’t understand the direct link between their actions and the state’s resources.
Some people also pay taxes when they refuel their cars, as there are additional state taxes on fuel. Taxes are also added to cigarettes and alcohol products, so it’s not just about income taxes. Together with our partners, we provided an online calculator that allowed people to enter the amount of money they spent and earned each month, such as their salary. It would show them how much tax they were paying to the state. We wanted to foster the perception that the state budget is not an abstract concept. When a corrupt official steals, they steal from us.
This was another successful campaign that I’m proud of because many Ukrainians didn’t see themselves as taxpayers, but they are. Through this and other campaigns, we also offered legal advice for everyday operations where people might encounter corruption, such as in the education system, hospitals, or state administrative licenses.
Public polling showed that even Ukrainian youth at the time were not motivated to defend their rights for various reasons. Some believed there was no point in protecting their violated rights; others didn’t know how to do so legally or didn’t trust the system, including the judicial system. Instead, they turned to corrupt schemes to get services from the state.
We wanted to show how misguided this behavior is. If you’ve already paid taxes and then paid a bribe for a service you should receive for free, you’re not being clever by gaming the system—you’re being foolish. You’ve paid for the service twice: once with your taxes and again with the bribe. That’s not intelligent behavior, and we aimed to change that mindset.
According to the latest data, since 2007, the readiness to protect rights among Ukrainians has been at its highest level, at around 52%. More than half of the population is willing to protect their rights. I see this as an essential element of living in a legal state—living according to the law and protecting your rights through legal means, not corruption.
Jacobsen: As Ukraine pursues closer ties with the EU, public pressure often drives governments to introduce or refine policies. Are any significant anti-corruption policies currently being proposed or implemented locally or nationally?
Kalitenko: Ukraine has adopted a comprehensive anti-corruption strategy, with concrete measures across different sectors to combat and prevent corruption. These anti-corruption policy documents have also received positive evaluations from our European partners.
The National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP) is now monitoring the level of implementation of these anti-corruption documents. Recently, some changes were made to reflect the current conditions better. Still, these are solid, evidence-based strategic documents that address the challenges and problems we face today. With measures, indicators, responsible persons and institutions, and deadlines for implementation, these documents should serve as a vital tool for combating corruption. However, this is just one instrument. Another critical tool is asset declaration.
The unified registry of electronic asset declarations was reestablished last year on a public online platform. Now, officials have submitted millions of asset declarations into this system, visible to investigative journalists, civil society activists, or anyone interested in examining a local official’s declaration. This is a significant prevention tool, as these asset declarations cover a wide range of assets and can reveal inconsistencies or lies and cases of illicit enrichment, potential conflicts of interest, or assets acquired without proper justification.
The third instrument I would highlight is reestablishing the obligation for political parties in Ukraine to submit their financial reports for verification. These financial reports are also public, allowing anyone to see a political party’s donors and how it spends its money. This is another essential tool that was reestablished last year. Like the asset declaration registry, it had been closed to public access following the full-scale invasion but has now been reopened.
Additionally, I recommend the complete restoration of competitive processes in public procurement. We have a good tool called Prozorro, the electronic public procurement system, which investigative journalists use extensively to monitor for wrongdoing in this area. So, overall, despite the war with Russia, Ukraine has demonstrated significant progress in fighting corruption.
Our Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) has shown that countries fighting a war typically decline their scores as corruption increases under such circumstances. However, Ukraine gained an additional 3 points last year, one of the best results globally. The CPI covers nearly 200 countries and territories, and Ukraine has shown a remarkable upward trend. Over the past 10 years, we have gained 11 points, placing us among the top 15 countries in terms of improvement.
We have now reached a level comparable to other EU candidate states, such as Bosnia and Herzegovina, Albania, Turkey, Serbia, and North Macedonia. This means we are on par with those countries regarding perceived corruption and are ready to be a successful candidate for EU membership.
However, we still have significant potential to continue fighting corruption. The corruption scandals that have appeared in the media over the past few years indicate that our anti-corruption institutions—the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU), the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO), and the High Anti-Corruption Court (HACC)—are functioning well. These institutions were built from scratch and can still demonstrate effective results, even in wartime.
Jacobsen: Managing long-term projects like these involves ensuring volunteers deliver consistent results. How do you set performance expectations and maintain quality across such diverse efforts?
Kalitenko: We have setbacks, of course, but this should also be adequately reflected in the volunteers’ expectations when they submit their CVs for consideration to avoid future disappointments. Anti-corruption work is a marathon, not a sprint; our Corruption Perceptions Index clearly shows this. While we’ve gained points in some years, we’ve also lost points at times. For instance, we lost points when anti-corruption activists were attacked on the national and regional levels. There were setbacks due to delays in the formation of the High Anti-Corruption Court. Before it was established, cases investigated by NABU and SAPO were transferred to general courts, where they often collected dust because the judges did not prioritize them.
This caused a significant delay in demonstrating a solid track record in anti-corruption efforts. We also faced a considerable challenge in 2020 when the Constitutional Court made a scandalous decision almost to cancel the entire asset declaration system and limit the powers of the National Agency on Corruption Prevention, which is responsible for verifying such declarations. Though this was eventually reversed after a few months, over 100 cases investigated by the anti-corruption system were closed, and some officials were even acquitted in court.
The article on illicit enrichment was also canceled in the criminal code by the Constitutional Court. This hurt the anti-corruption fight, as cases of illicit enrichment involving officials were closed. So yes, we’ve had rollbacks on our anti-corruption path. Still, international partners and civil society have played a significant role in helping us move forward. Their conditionalities—such as those set by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) or European partners for financial aid, grants, and credits—have been powerful levers.
However, Ukraine did not meet all of these conditionalities. I recall a case from about seven years ago when Ukraine lost nearly €600 million in aid because we failed to start properly verifying officials’ asset declarations. That was a sensitive issue for us. But together with our international partners, civil society has been able to advocate for anti-corruption measures and push for political will at the government level.
Jacobsen: International partners like Canada and the United States have offered varied support—financial aid from Canada and arms assistance from the U.S. Beyond monetary contributions, what forms of international help—be it expertise, personnel, or institutional collaboration—would be most impactful in strengthening Ukraine’s anti-corruption initiatives?
Kalitenko: International partners have contributed significantly to Ukrainian reforms, and it’s not just about sending cash. For example, they’ve helped by nominating internationally recognized experts to selection commissions for key positions within major institutions. This kind of support—expertise, and personnel—can be far more impactful than just financial aid, as it ensures that the right people are appointed to lead vital anti-corruption and reform efforts.
I could mention the NABU, SAPO, and other institutions, so one option for international partners is to nominate strong experts to select commissions for heads of Ukrainian institutions and as independent external auditors. For example, we’ve already seen an audit report on the efficiency of the National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP). This report, published last summer, was the first time any anti-corruption institution in Ukraine faced an external audit. Another audit will be conducted soon, and the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) also began its audit last month, with the participation of international experts.
This involvement is crucial because it brings international expertise and best practices. For example, the NACP audit included an expert from the United States. These experts provide valuable recommendations based on their international experience, which is essential for our reforms and understanding the lessons learned. So, bringing in expertise is another critical role international partners can play.
Jacobsen: Zero tolerance for corruption is a bold and aspirational standard. Given the ongoing war, is this goal feasible now, or should it remain a long-term target? How do you balance the urgency of wartime anti-corruption measures with the ambition of zero tolerance?
Kalitenko: Ukrainian society has already demonstrated a strong zero-tolerance attitude toward corruption. It’s not just about people declaring their readiness to be whistleblowers—there’s a broader societal shift. Before the full-scale war, about one-third of the population justified corruption as a useful tool to solve problems or access services more quickly than others. But now, that mindset has changed significantly.
It’s not just about petty corruption, though it has its cost. Now, Ukrainians show much less tolerance for corruption overall, and this shift has created a more favorable political environment. People no longer justify corruption as they once did, which is a significant change. This zero-tolerance attitude is essential for the war effort and the long-term success of Ukraine’s anti-corruption reforms.
After the Maidan Revolution, Ukraine announced that its number one goal was combating corruption. Of course, as I mentioned earlier, we’ve had setbacks along the way. Still, it’s impressive that reforms, including anti-corruption efforts, have continued even during the full-scale war. I expect the pace of reform to accelerate even more after the war.
We’ve already set reasonable standards for the region. For instance, our whistleblower protection and asset declaration systems set a high bar—not even all EU countries have the same level of asset declaration coverage as Ukraine or the same level of transparency in public procurement. It’s an optimistic sign that we’ve been able to build this anti-corruption infrastructure from scratch. I don’t think it’s accurate to say that Ukraine should follow the example of more prosperous countries. Our circumstances are unique, and some decisions we’ve made here are exclusive to our situation.
Of course, we should still follow international recommendations. But I’d argue that we’ve already exceeded specific EU standards in some areas, like public procurement. So, yes, we have some promising sectors where Ukraine could even set best practices for other countries. I’m optimistic about this.
We should continue to find and follow our path because our circumstances—especially during a full-scale war—are unique, and we must address them appropriately.
Jacobsen: A final question, turning briefly to Russia: Has the war led to increased corruption within Russia’s control areas, or has it prompted reforms or tighter controls?
Kalitenko: We haven’t researched this point in-depth, but I can tell you the facts from the Corruption Perceptions Index. According to the CPI, Russia’s score has decreased, meaning the perceived level of corruption has increased.
Jacobsen: Oleksandr, thank you so much for the opportunity to speak with you.
Kalitenko: Thank you for your questions and for the invitation to do this interview.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): International Policy Digest
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/11/24
Said Najib Asil, president and CEO of Free Speech Hub, has steadfastly advocated for Afghan journalists and the broader cause of press freedom. Founded in 2019, the organization, after facing disruptions, resumed its vital work from Toronto on May 1, 2023. Its mission is multifaceted: connecting Afghan journalists across the globe, documenting the precarious conditions of the press under Taliban rule, and offering crucial mentorship and support systems, including mental health services.
Despite the Taliban’s draconian restrictions and the immense economic pressures bearing down on the media landscape, many journalists continue their work, undeterred by the considerable risks. They face a litany of threats—imprisonment, harassment, and violence—with executions becoming a grim reality for some. Reports paint a harrowing picture of torture and other forms of targeted abuse, underscoring the perilous conditions journalists endure to tell their stories.
For Asil, Free Speech Hub’s work represents more than advocacy; it is a lifeline. The organization remains committed to safeguarding journalists and championing their right to report freely, no matter the odds.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: One year later, we’re speaking again with Said Najib Asil, who now serves as the president and CEO of Free Speech Hub.
To start, could you outline the foundation of Free Speech Hub? What does it offer for Afghan journalists—whether they fled the country abruptly or managed to leave lawfully before the Taliban’s return to power?
Said Najib Asil: Thank you so much. Free Speech Hub is a non-profit organization that supports Afghan journalists and advocates for press freedom and freedom of speech in Afghanistan. The organization was established in 2019 in Afghanistan with a board of 15 media managers. Unfortunately, after August 15, 2021, and the fall of Kabul, all members of Free Speech Hub’s board of directors left and relocated to different countries.
After three years, we resumed our operations in Toronto. Today, we focus on the state of media in Afghanistan and the journalists now in countries such as Iran, Pakistan, and Turkey. Approximately 7,000 Afghan journalists left the country after the fall of Kabul and are currently living in various countries around the world.
Through Free Speech Hub, we are working to unite these journalists and create a more strategic response to support freedom of speech and expression in Afghanistan. We are in touch with journalists within Afghanistan and in neighboring countries such as Pakistan and Iran, as well as in countries like Canada, the United States, and European countries. The situation has drastically changed since August 15, 2021, when the Taliban regained power for the second time.
Before that, after 2001, when the U.S. and around 40 other countries were present in Afghanistan, the country’s media and freedom of speech situation was significantly better. Over the past two decades, over 600 media outlets, including TV stations, radio stations, and newspapers, were established across the 34 provinces of Afghanistan, engaging around 10.000 to 12,000 journalists nationwide. Based on surveys conducted by international organizations, Afghanistan was considered one of the most accessible countries in terms of freedom of expression and press freedom, outperforming China, Pakistan, India, and Iran.
These were significant achievements for Afghanistan’s media over the past two decades. However, since the Taliban regained power, more than 7,000 journalists have left the country. Ninety percent of Afghan women journalists lost their jobs or can no longer pursue their passion. The Taliban now use the media outlets that are still operating in Kabul and other provinces as propaganda tools for their agenda. The concept of free speech or press freedom no longer exists in Afghanistan. This is the dire reality under the Taliban regime. Over the past three years, more than 300 Afghan journalists have been beaten, harassed, and tortured.
This is the overall bigger picture for Afghanistan. Through Free Speech Hub, we are in touch with journalists based in Kabul and other provinces. We document what’s happening in the country daily and provide reports on what’s happening regarding freedom of speech and expression in Afghanistan.
We also work with journalists in countries like Pakistan, Iran, and Turkey, where around 700 Afghan journalists reside. They still await long-term protection and resettlement from various countries and organizations. We work with these journalists, advocate on their behalf, and connect them with international support organizations for journalists.
We are drafting letters to these organizations and working with embassies and ambassadors of these countries to explore how we can bring these journalists to safety and secure long-term protection. In countries like Canada and others, we are working with journalists, especially those connected to media organizations established over the past three years. We provide courses and mentorship programs and connect them with mental health professionals to support them. After arriving in new countries, many of these journalists need help to continue their work in journalism.
Some of them have taken on labor-intensive jobs, such as working in construction, driving for Uber, or other service roles. However, we are trying to reconnect them with media organizations in various countries.
Over the past ten months, we have seen several achievements in Canada. We organized three conferences in Toronto. We held a conference in partnership with the Dashty Foundation in the Canadian Parliament, where we invited MPs, senators, and ambassadors from the Netherlands and Australia, as well as permanent residents of Canada, the Canadian ambassadors to the United Nations, and Afghan journalist activists for a one-day conference. We highlighted the current situation in Afghanistan and urged the Canadian government and other countries to extend support for the future of Afghanistan.
Through these conferences, we aim to push governments to provide safety for Afghan media and journalists, especially given the daily challenging circumstances that many journalists face. These are some initiatives we are working on through Free Speech Hub.
Jacobsen: You’ve mentioned reports of torture—specifically 300 documented cases. What forms of torture are these journalists enduring? What kinds of stories are emerging?
Asil: We have documented 300 cases through international media support organizations. When we connect with journalists inside Afghanistan, they share that the Taliban imposes strict restrictions on critical topics that journalists are prohibited from covering, such as security issues, the national budget, and stories involving women, freedom of movement, and freedom of speech. These issues are among journalists’ biggest concerns; they cannot work or report on them independently.
When some journalists are reporting stories for exiled media from Afghanistan, the Taliban, along with security organizations, imprison these journalists and exercise complete control over them. We have received several accounts detailing very different experiences, where journalists have shared their stories and even pictures showing the torture and beatings they endured at the hands of the Taliban.
Jacobsen: What about executions?
Asil: We do not have any specific cases involving journalists, but overall, executions are occurring daily in different parts of the country.
Jacobsen: Some courageous individuals—names withheld for their safety—are practicing what can only be described as guerrilla journalism, operating covertly within Afghanistan to evade Taliban surveillance. What words of encouragement would you share with those risking their lives under a theocratic regime? These individuals, whether secular or moderate, continue to uphold the principles of a free press.
Asil: As I mentioned, Afghan journalists have accomplished a great deal over the past two decades. Many journalists inside the country want to cover different stories freely. However, the Taliban imposed extensive restrictions, preventing them from doing so.
Despite this, some journalists continue to report, albeit in secrecy. They must hide their identities and cannot openly oppose the Taliban. Suppose the Taliban identifies any critical reports from a media organization. In that case, they immediately contact the news manager, the media organization, and the journalist directly, often resulting in the journalist’s immediate imprisonment. This makes the situation highly challenging for journalists.
Many journalists want to continue their work but need help overcoming severe obstacles. Additionally, most journalists are under significant financial pressure. They need employment to cover their daily expenses, pay bills, and support their families. The media industry often becomes their only viable job option, regardless of the content the media organizations produce and distribute to the public.
Journalists remain in the profession not only for their passion but out of economic necessity, to receive a salary that helps sustain their lives and those of their families. This financial situation is another significant challenge Afghan journalists face. Conversations with journalists reveal that they understand and value the principles they stand for but acknowledge that current conditions make it impossible to uphold them fully.
Pushing journalism in Afghanistan means addressing these economic realities. Salaries are vital for journalists to pay their bills and support their families. The financial strain compounds their challenges, making the profession difficult and dangerous.
Jacobsen: Thank you again.
Asil: Thank you so much.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): International Policy Digest
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/11/23
In an era where global attention spans are fleeting, Mykhailo Tymuliak, a former reporter for Kontakt, a television program based in Canada targeting Ukrainians living abroad, emphasizes the vital role of the Ukrainian Canadian diaspora in keeping Ukraine’s struggle against Russian aggression at the forefront of international discourse.
As media coverage dwindles, Tymuliak discusses the pressing need for continued awareness, international support, and community building among Ukrainians in Canada.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: I returned from Ukraine on September 14th. This marked my most extended trip to the country and my second visit since the full-scale invasion began. The journey lasted just under a month, taking me to locations as close as 10 kilometers from the Russian border. One of the farthest points I reached was Sumy, a city whose proximity to Kursk made the tension palpable. However, we had to turn back, warned that proceeding further would be too dangerous—an entirely reasonable caution given the circumstances.
Experiences like these tend to linger. For many who leave such intense environments, returning home often brings a sense of decompression. The nervous system, taut from constant vigilance, begins to relax. Only then does clarity emerge, allowing for a deeper reflection on events that are too overwhelming to process fully in real time.
How vital is it for the Ukrainian diaspora in Canada to document personal stories, foster community ties, and report on the ongoing challenges faced by their people?
Mykhailo Tymuliak: The task of the Ukrainian diaspora is to draw attention to Ukraine abroad. After nearly three years of full-scale invasion, many in the Western world have started to forget about the war, and media coverage has dwindled. The diaspora must remind the world that the war is ongoing, the Russian invasion continues, and their crimes are escalating. Ukrainians in Canada are actively working to maintain global attention and raise awareness about Ukraine.
Jacobsen: With numerous conflicts around the globe—from the Israel-Hamas crisis to the overlooked struggles in Sudan—why should the Russo-Ukrainian war command our focus? What makes this war so crucial amid a world of competing crises?
Tymuliak: The Russian war against Ukraine is the largest conflict in Europe since World War II, involving immense military resources, advanced technologies like tanks and drones, and numerous international players. Russia’s allies, including Iran and China, provide support, while Ukraine receives backing from many Western nations, emphasizing the global importance of defending democracy and sovereignty. This war is uniquely clear-cut, with Russia as the aggressor and Ukraine defending itself.
In contrast, the Israel-Hamas conflict is more nuanced, with Western nations occasionally urging Israel to avoid actions that could escalate the situation. While the suffering of civilians in Palestine is tragic, Israel’s actions are driven by its security concerns.
Focusing on the Russo-Ukrainian war remains critical because Russia and its allies threaten democracy and aim to reshape the global order. Maintaining global attention on Ukraine is vital to countering these broader threats.
Jacobsen: Beyond the impact of war, your work in filmmaking stands out. What kinds of films have you created, and what topics have you explored? Preserving and revitalizing arts and culture often holds immense significance for diasporas like the Kurdish community in Canada, which I’m familiar with. Do you see parallels in your own work?
Tymuliak: As a journalist, I cover topics related to the war in Ukraine, volunteering, and political processes around Ukraine.
I created several stories highlighting individuals with unique ties to Ukraine. One was about a man of Ukrainian descent whose great-grandfather emigrated to Canada. Although he had no strong connection to Ukraine and had never visited before the war, the 2014 annexation of Crimea compelled him to act. In 2015, he joined the Ukrainian army as a tank operator. He served for several years and eventually chose to stay and live in Ukraine. After the full-scale invasion, he rejoined the fight until retiring at 60.
Another story featured a former police officer from Montreal, originally of French roots, who had no prior connection to Ukraine but felt a duty to support it. As a drone operator, he trained Ukrainian soldiers and participated in combat during multiple deployments. His expertise was crucial in countering Russian tanks on the battlefield.
Both individuals emphasized that the war in Ukraine is not as distant from Canada as it might seem. They believed Canada has a vested interest in Ukraine’s success and highlighted the importance of Canadian support. Sharing these stories is meaningful because they inspire awareness and action for Ukraine’s cause.
Jacobsen: How do Ukrainians generally view President Putin’s justifications for the aggression—rhetoric that has been widely condemned? Claims about neo-Nazis, though less prominent now, were once central to his narrative. In a notable interview with far-right television personality Tucker Carlson, he even delivered an extended monologue about history. Based on your experience and conversations, how do Ukrainians typically respond to such narratives?
Tymuliak: We should critically examine what is true and what is fabricated. Putin often seeks to justify his actions in Ukraine through distorted historical narratives. For instance, when he told Tucker Carlson that he invaded Ukraine because 400 years ago, someone signed a contract making Ukraine part of Russia, it was absurd. Surprisingly, such claims still find an audience in the Western world.
The interview with Carlson elicited mixed reactions in the West. On the one hand, many laughed at Putin’s outlandish reasoning, exposing how detached he is from reality. On the other hand, it’s concerning that some in the West still entertain the idea that Putin’s actions have any logical basis or that the war could have valid justification.
Ukrainians generally view Putin’s justifications as nonsensical and disconnected from reality. His reliance on vague, centuries-old references highlights the irrationality of his actions, making it clear to many in the West that his reasoning lacks any credible foundation.
Jacobsen: I’ve come across diverse perspectives among Ukrainians about the practical realities of ending the war, even among everyday citizens. Some hold the hope that international condemnation will eventually translate into tangible outcomes. For instance, the AES11-1 resolution at the UN General Assembly saw 141 member states opposing the full-scale invasion, demanding the withdrawal of Russian troops and the return of annexed territories. To put this into perspective, the annexed regions represent a substantial portion—between 18% and 20%—of Ukraine’s land. This viewpoint reflects a broader reliance on the mechanisms of international diplomacy.
But other opinions diverge significantly. I spoke with a younger couple whose outlook surprised me. While they were critical of both Putin and the aggression, they expressed frustration with Ukraine’s political landscape even before the war. Their discontent stretches back to the annexation of Crimea, which some call the “lighter invasion.” Now, amidst the ongoing conflict, they find themselves disengaged. Their focus has shifted toward simply living their lives, even if it means reluctantly accepting the loss of territory seized in violation of international law.
These voices contrast with the majority, which aligns with the international consensus. Yet, this minority—willing to prioritize peace over reclaiming land—raises difficult questions. How do we reconcile such pragmatism with the principles of justice and sovereignty? And what do these perspectives reveal about the psychological toll of an unending war?
Tymuliak: Throughout history, global conflicts often began with a surge of volunteers willing to defend their land and national interests. Many are prepared to make sacrifices in the early stages of war—within the first months or years. However, as wars drag on, public willingness to continue the fight diminishes. Over time, the desire for peace often grows stronger.
In Ukraine, some now argue that conceding territory might stop the war. However, this perspective is flawed. The war cannot end unilaterally; its conclusion depends entirely on Russia’s decision to cease aggression. If Ukraine were to give up regions, Putin would likely view this as a victory and a validation of further aggression, emboldening him to push further. His goal is control over all of Ukraine, making any territorial concessions a strategic mistake.
The international community must uphold international law and support Ukraine reclaiming its 1991 borders. Ukraine cannot achieve this alone, as Russia’s resources far exceed its own. That’s why the United Nations and global allies must develop a comprehensive strategy to help Ukraine regain its territories—whether through military, political, or diplomatic means. Failing to do so would set a dangerous precedent, encouraging other powerful nations to act with impunity.
Many Ukrainians remain committed to fighting for their land and sovereignty. However, as the war continues, the toll on people increases, and many seek ways to bring the conflict to an end. Yet, the reality is that Ukraine cannot stop the war on its own. The decision lies solely with Putin and Russia.
Conceding even 20% of Ukraine’s territory will not bring peace. Instead, it would embolden Putin, proving that aggression leads to results without consequence. There is no reason to believe he would stop at that point. On the contrary, it would incentivize him to push further, threatening Ukraine and the broader international order.
This is why the international community must assist Ukraine in reclaiming its territory. Whether through diplomacy, military aid, or political pressure, a solution that does not involve sacrificing Ukraine’s sovereignty must be found. While it’s understandable that some Ukrainians desire an end to the war at any cost, conceding land will not achieve peace. It will only prolong the conflict and strengthen Russia’s resolve.
Jacobsen: For Ukrainians in the diaspora who have recently arrived—those not from second, third, or fourth generations fully integrated into Canadian society but deeply rooted in Ukrainian heritage—what do they most need as they adapt to life here?
Tymuliak: Canada has provided Ukrainians with the most important thing—a safe environment. Approximately 300,000 Ukrainians have come here under a special program from the Canadian government, and we are all very grateful to Canada and its people.
Canada offers various programs to support refugees from different countries, often providing significant resources like housing and basic needs. However, for Ukrainians arriving under the CUAET program, support is limited to a one-time payment of $3,000. After that, they are told, “This is for you; make the most of it.”
Some Canadians misunderstand that the government spends heavily on Ukrainians. Most Ukrainians do not rely on government assistance. They arrive with work permits and quickly find employment. Ukrainian Canadian organizations also play a significant role in helping newcomers with information on how to find jobs, housing, and other resources.
Ukrainians coming to Canada often bring some savings and rarely require shelter. They seek safety and the opportunity to work and earn an income. While their work permits are valid for three years, there is no clear pathway to permanent residency. Recently, extensions were allowed until March, but there’s uncertainty about what will happen if the war in Ukraine continues. This lack of clarity creates anxiety about the future, as Ukrainians cannot make long-term financial or life plans.
For instance, many hesitate to take car loans or buy houses because they don’t know if they’ll have to leave Canada when their permits expire. This uncertainty is the biggest challenge Ukrainians face now. They need clear guidance from the government about their long-term prospects.
Eight months ago, I asked Pierre Poilievre about this, and he admitted it would be difficult to send Ukrainians back if the war continued. But the question remains: what will happen when the permits expire? Until this is addressed, Ukrainians in Canada will continue to face significant challenges in planning their futures.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Mykhailo.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): International Policy Digest
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/11/07
Unpaid work performed by women accounts for as much as 40 percent of GDP in some nations, a staggering statistic that underscores the imbalance. Achieving gender equality requires addressing these disparities—redistributing unpaid labor, childcare, and household responsibilities. Globally, women and girls perform over twice as many hours of unpaid work each day as men. How should we respond to these numbers? While indifference or pessimism are tempting reactions, neither helps move us forward. Instead, learning, taking action, and recognizing the potential for change offer a path toward a more equitable society.
Empowering women, in turn, empowers men and strengthens communities as a whole. Although women face unique challenges, this isn’t an attempt to paint them solely as victims but to provide a statistical grounding for understanding inequalities. Across the world, women—particularly those from minority and migrant backgrounds—experience greater disparities in both paid and unpaid labor. These gaps are more than statistical; they’re solvable issues.
Globally, women make up around 80 percent of paid domestic workers, meaning they often engage in caregiving professionally and continue it at home without compensation. Of course, every situation varies, and these responsibilities should ideally be balanced based on individual circumstances. Yet, on a societal level, we must address the gross disparities in workload if we’re to build a fairer system. Poverty, in many cases, can be traced back to these unequal burdens.
Investing in women isn’t just an investment in individuals—it’s an investment in the broader economy. Increased time spent on unpaid labor limits women’s potential earnings, creating long-term financial constraints and heightening the risk of poverty. Recent international initiatives suggest there is growing recognition of this issue. National strategies, such as those passed in Panama, Colombia, Chile, and Brazil, have established care systems that aim to alleviate these burdens and provide more equitable access to support.
The International Day of Care and Support serves as a reminder of the importance of these systems. UN Women acknowledged notable progress in various countries. Kenya’s use of its first national Time Use Survey, for instance, informed the development of its national care policy. The Philippines’ Caregivers Welfare Act protects caregivers’ rights, while Spain has introduced a strategy for community-based long-term care. Canada, meanwhile, is working to provide affordable, inclusive childcare options in collaboration with provincial and Indigenous partners, supported by a $30 billion investment over five years.
These advancements represent steps toward a society where care and support are valued equally across genders. Every initiative that shifts the balance of unpaid labor brings us closer to an equitable future, where the contributions of all citizens—paid or unpaid—are fully recognized and rewarded.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Green Reporter
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/12/17
Seyfi Tomar is Vice President of Ebs Global, a Canadian construction firm focused on creating durable and sustainable structures, from hospitals and schools to mid-rise buildings, focusing on cost efficiency and environmental responsibility. Seyfi passionately advocates for prefabricated steel systems, customizing designs to reflect local cultures while delivering eco-friendly solutions.
As a key sponsor of Rebuild Ukraine initiatives, Seyfi spearheads efforts to restore infrastructure in war-torn regions, blending Canadian expertise with international collaboration. His approach combines advanced technologies like recycled galvanized steel to address housing shortages and infrastructure demands.
Despite challenges such as securing funding from organizations like the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) and Export Development Canada (EDC), Seyfi remains committed to scaling sustainable solutions, prioritizing speed, affordability, and cultural integrity. Early projects include rebuilding Bakhmut, emphasizing innovation and resilience in the face of immense challenges.
In this interview, we explore Seyfi’s vision for Ukraine’s reconstruction following the Toronto Rebuilding Ukraine conference, exploring his approach to global recovery and sustainable innovation.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Seyfi, the Rebuilding Ukraine conference in Toronto highlighted immense challenges and opportunities. What is the most critical insight about reconstruction efforts in Ukraine that you want people to understand?
Seyfi Tomar: We have been involved since the beginning of the war. We have always wanted to help because we are a company that consistently extends a helping hand to refugees and displaced people. At the same time, we aim to facilitate using our new technology to create accommodation for those in need.
Jacobsen: Canada is geographically distant from Ukraine. How is the country overcoming logistical hurdles to play a significant role in reconstruction?
Tomar: Due to bureaucratic complexities, the Canadian government needs to make clear how it plans to fund these efforts. However, they are collaborating with us to establish facilities in Ukraine and register our companies to begin construction. Simultaneously, I have engaged with Export Development Canada and other capital firms that are heavily involved in financing reconstruction projects.
The process remains to be determined. We need to continue working on it and secure funding from institutions such as the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Export Development Canada, and the International Finance Corporation (IFC).
I have already communicated with these entities. As a Canadian company, we can also set up a manufacturing plant in Ukraine to produce prefabricated light-gauge steel panels. With over 50 years of experience in construction, during which we have built hospitals and other public buildings urgently needed in Ukraine, we are well-prepared to contribute to this effort.
We recently established a Construction Innovation Solutions Lab, which applied for funding for some projects with the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC). The same team secured some funds from MITACS in the past. This lab enables us to adapt and implement advanced technologies developed in different countries in Canada. We have already integrated some of these innovations, and any future advancements will also be applied to reconstruction projects in Ukraine.
In Ukraine, there is an urgent need for non-combustible, affordable, and sustainable buildings, including schools and hospitals. Our three companies offer a comprehensive package of solutions tailored to these needs.
Jacobsen: Your firm has introduced groundbreaking construction techniques. Could you detail these innovations and their significance for rebuilding Ukraine?
Tomar: We are currently working on engineering building systems. We use galvanized steel, which is zero-waste, sustainable, and reusable. Unlike traditional methods, where thousands of trees are cut down to build houses, our approach uses recycled galvanized steel to construct houses with zero waste. This method is exactly what Ukraine needs right now. It is also essential that we build durable houses and buildings.
Jacobsen: Bakhmut has suffered devastating destruction. Could you describe your plans to reconstruct this city and the unique challenges involved?
Tomar: I have always followed Bakhmut’s story. I have kept in touch with developments, watched a documentary, and learned its history. I met with the mayor and a few other Bakhmut individuals in Poland.
They have put together a project to build homes for 3,500 people in a manner that replicates Bakhmut’s original architecture. We agreed in principle to undertake the project. However, I am still determining the exact location, though I remember it is in western Ukraine.
We will review the details when we visit in person next week, as the architectural drawings still need to be finalized. I have spoken to someone from Export Development Canada and will coordinate with the underwriters.
The early stage of the project involves securing funding to create the architectural plans and prepare for construction. Overall, the project is still in its initial stages, so there is little to say. However, our intention is clear: we aim to start building as soon as possible. Ideally, we will be on-site before Christmas and begin construction right after the new year. How quickly we can proceed will depend on the funding we secure from various sources.
Jacobsen: Funding is often a bottleneck for large-scale projects. How are you securing financing, and how do you ensure accurate cost estimation for these initiatives?
Tomar: The cost estimations are already in place. The budget has been determined collaboratively by the mayor’s office of Bakhmut, which will be built in Hoshcha.
We have a ballpark figure for the required amount. Still, we must contact investors, including the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the International Finance Corporation, and Export Development Canada, to determine their contributions.
This process is time-consuming, but we are actively working on it. We have the facilities, workforce, skilled personnel, and knowledge to build. The only piece that needs to be added is funding, which we are addressing.
That is why we are going to Ukraine in person—to meet with key individuals and discuss further. I am already communicating with the three primary entities funding many reconstruction projects in Ukraine.
Jacobsen: Van Horne Construction, Engineered Building Systems, and the Construction Innovation Solutions Lab are key players in your efforts. How do these entities collaborate to drive economic and infrastructure growth in Ukraine?
Tomar: FIABCI-Canada, where I am the Secretary-General, allows me to network globally from 70 different countries, and then I explore innovative technologies and solutions worldwide to adopt under the Construction Innovation Solutions Lab. I identify these innovations in various countries and bring them to Ebs Global.
At Ebs Global, we assess feasibility and determine how to adapt these technologies to the Canadian climate and the specific construction needs in Ukraine. Finally, we implement and build these projects under Van Horne Construction.
These three entities work synergistically: one focuses on research, another on engineering, and Van Hoorde takes charge of the building process.
Jacobsen: Energy infrastructure is a crucial component of modernization. How are you integrating advanced energy solutions into your reconstruction projects?
Tomar: We have yet to gain experience in that area.
Jacobsen: During the Toronto conference, did you meet potential partners who could play a pivotal role in advancing these efforts?
Tomar: I spoke with AECON, Canada’s largest civil construction company. They are pursuing a dam project and several other initiatives in Ukraine. We have reached a preliminary agreement to collaborate once they are on-site.
This is still in the early stages, but once we are there, we will meet again to explore how we can contribute to each other’s projects. We aim to collaborate with AECON and all companies entering Ukraine to provide our services.
Jacobsen: Were there any specific panels or speeches during the conference that resonated with your work and inspired new directions?
Tomar: Yes, many people I met there came from Ukraine and others from Canada, including representatives of the Canada-Ukraine Chamber of Commerce, such as President Zenon and Vice President Yuri, and the consular staff. They collaborate closely, and we share a mutual belief in integrity and teamwork.
We plan to work together. Leah from Export Development Canada has also been instrumental in this. She helps us by connecting us with underwriters. The conference in Toronto was very fruitful.
We attended a similar gathering in Warsaw, Poland, a couple of weeks ago with many of the same individuals. Tomorrow, I will meet with Stephen Lecce, the Minister of Energy for Ontario, whom I previously met in Poland and Toronto.
I am working to accelerate our efforts by leveraging our networks at different levels of government to contribute to rebuilding Ukraine. However, everything is still in the early stages.
We are working hard. We have plans, programs, knowledge, and experience. Now, we must assemble all the necessary elements to move forward.
Jacobsen: Workforce availability is critical for large-scale projects. How are you ensuring you have enough skilled labor, especially considering the local challenges?
Tomar: The priority is to employ veterans, the relatives of veterans from Ukraine, and other local people. If a labour shortage persists after that and we have exhausted local options, we can hire workers from Turkey. This is feasible because we are ending all our operations in Turkey and relocating our companies to Ukraine.
Jacobsen: In your view, what is the most significant obstacle to realizing these ambitious reconstruction plans?
Tomar: The only significant challenge for a company at our level, with our knowledge and experience, is securing funding. Our knowledge, tools, experience, workforce, and skilled workers are already in place. We utilize innovative technology and build creatively. Everything is ready to go. Funding is the only hurdle—there are no other significant obstacles.
Once we establish our companies in Ukraine before Christmas, we will become a valuable asset to other developers and builders arriving from countries like Germany, Denmark, Finland, and Italy.
We can provide services and sub-trades to those companies because, when they come, they may face bigger challenges than we do. Our extensive experience in various war zones in Turkey and 53 years of experience in Canada make us more equipped than any other company to build in Ukraine.
Under Ebs Global, we can offer exceptional services to builders and developers from other European countries. This is why we are committed to being present in Ukraine.
Jacobsen: Hypothetically, if the war were to end tomorrow and funding became available, how quickly could construction begin, and what would a realistic timeline for rebuilding Bakhmut look like?
Tomar: Whether the war stops or continues, it does not matter; we want to rebuild Ukraine now. We do not intend to wait until the war ends—we are ready to start building immediately. We can construct faster, more customizable, and more durable houses than other developers. We are not waiting for the war to end; we are prepared to begin at any time.
Housing, schools, and hospitals are urgent needs, and we want to address them now. Waiting is not an option.
Jacobsen: Construction technology has advanced significantly, including robotics and automation that can operate 24/7. How do you see these innovations impacting your projects in Ukraine?
Tomar: Yes, that is precisely what we have adopted. Our fully computerized system allows us to produce in three shifts, 24/7.
We manufacture walls, slabs, and trusses with zero waste and precision, ensuring every element is perfectly sized and segmented for the project. When feasible, we also integrate VR and artificial intelligence technologies. Many innovative software solutions are available, but we avoid using them if a technology is not adaptable to a specific area or project.
Sometimes, we need to combine traditional methods with new, innovative approaches. That’s why we can only apply a one-size-fits-all approach to some projects. It depends on each project’s specific requirements.
We know and integrated many of the technologies you describe. We are aware of these advancements, including proptech and contech systems. I have worked with companies across the globe, from Indonesia to Nigeria, Germany to Spain, and many other countries. Through my networking platform, the United Nations-affiliated FIABCI Canada, I collaborate with people eager to assist Ukraine worldwide. My role is to facilitate these efforts.
Jacobsen: Eastern Europe has a distinct architectural identity. How are you incorporating the aesthetics of Ukrainian architecture into your designs while meeting modern needs?
Tomar: Ebs Global focuses on providing the structural skeleton of buildings. We adapt to the architectural preferences and climate-specific requirements of every country, province, or state we work in.
For instance, Bakhmut’s architectural style differs from what we see in Toronto or Vancouver. When we work in Ukraine, we will adopt the local architectural style that suits their needs and culture.
The main component of any construction project is the structure, which we provide at a more affordable price. However, we do not impose North American architectural styles on Ukraine or Eastern Europe.
We build the structure and then integrate the local tastes, cultural preferences, and architectural styles to ensure the final product aligns with their unique identity.
Jacobsen: Large-scale global projects often face regulatory and logistical barriers. What country-specific challenges—such as economic conditions, regulations, or supply chain issues—have you encountered?
Tomar: We foresee no significant hurdles in this regard. Regarding Ukraine, we have a strong network of suppliers. We source materials like galvanized steel and other products from countries such as Turkey, Indonesia, Egypt, and Spain.
Additionally, we are adopting new technology in Germany to produce bricks and convert them into panels. With this extensive network, we do not anticipate issues with supply or collaboration.
Jacobsen: Durability is essential for the longevity of infrastructure. How vital are corrosion-resistant coatings and fire-resistant materials in achieving sustainable, long-lasting buildings?
Tomar: Our light-gauge steel products have longer lifespans than traditional materials. In North America, for example, houses typically last 50 to 70 years. With our materials, the lifespan extends up to 100 years.
Moreover, our products resist bugs and termites and do not rust. So, what more could you want? This approach represents a better way to build durable and sustainable structures.
Jacobsen: Yeah, that covers almost everything.
Tomar: Thank you very much.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/05
Irina Tsukerman is a human rights and national security attorney based in New York and Connecticut. She earned her Bachelor of Arts in National and Intercultural Studies and Middle East Studies from Fordham University in 2006, followed by a Juris Doctor from Fordham University School of Law in 2009. She operates a boutique national security law practice. She serves as President of Scarab Rising, Inc., a media and security strategic advisory firm. Additionally, she is the Editor-in-Chief of The Washington Outsider, which focuses on foreign policy, geopolitics, security, and human rights. She is actively involved in several professional organizations, including the American Bar Association’s Energy, Environment, and Science and Technology Sections, where she serves as Program Vice Chair in the Oil and Gas Committee. She is also a member of the New York City Bar Association. She serves on the Middle East and North Africa Affairs Committee and affiliates with the Foreign and Comparative Law Committee.
In this interview with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Tsukerman discusses democratic backsliding, climate diplomacy, royal accountability, and African crisis responses. She frames Indamedia’s purchase of Ringier Hungary, including tabloid Blikk, as part of Viktor Orbán’s long campaign to dominate media through consolidation and pressure on critics, extending influence beyond Hungary. On COP30, she expects limited U.S. participation under Trump, arguing large climate summits underdeliver and bilateral or smaller deals may work better. She welcomes King Charles’s move against Prince Andrew amid Epstein fallout and potential security concerns. Regarding Tanzania’s protest deaths, she criticizes toothless Western “concern,” urging consequences and dedicated follow-through.
Interview conducted October 31, 2025, in the afternoon Pacific Time.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Welcome back to Everywhere Insiders! A pro-Orbán media group has bought Hungary’s main tabloid. This is immediately prior to the 2026 election. In Budapest, the media group — Indamedia, which is co-owned by pro-government businessman Miklós Vaszily and Gábor Ziegler — has purchased a portfolio that includes Hungary’s main tabloid newspaper, Blikk. The headline is a little misleading because it’s not just a targeted purchase; it’s a portfolio acquisition that happens to include the tabloid. General elections are in April for Prime Minister Viktor Orbán. He is being challenged by a center-right opposition party, Tisza, led by Péter Magyar, which is leading in most polls.
Indamedia co-owner and CEO Gábor Ziegler stated, “Through the acquisition of Ringier Hungary, the group is gaining a well-performing media company of similar size to Indamedia, with strong market positions and successful brands that play a defining role in the Hungarian media landscape.” Based on the public statements, if taken at face value, this appears to be a media acquisition aimed at expanding market presence — not necessarily a political move. Any thoughts on this?
Irina Tsukerman: This is not something new for Orbán. He has been consolidating his power for many years using precisely this strategy. On one hand, he seeks to monopolize popular media, whether in print or on video; on the other, he uses regulatory and financial pressure that raises costs for competitors and critics. He has tried to avoid directly shutting down competing private channels because he does not want to be accused of being undemocratic. Still, it is clearly a cynical use of government power to centralize control over major media channels and to squeeze anyone who might expose or criticize his approach.
What people often fail to realize is that his methods are not limited to Hungary’s borders. Euronews was acquired in 2022 by Alpac Capital, a Portuguese fund whose CEO is linked to a close adviser to Orbán; investigations have raised concerns about the deal’s financing and potential influence, though Euronews states it operates independently. Following the takeover, the network shifted headquarters toward Brussels and underwent restructuring, which prompted further scrutiny.
Jacobsen: The United States will not be sending high-level federal officials to the COP30 climate talks in Belém, Brazil (November 6–21, 2025), according to public reporting and statements; this aligns with the administration’s broader skepticism toward multilateral climate forums.
One thing that may be less widely known: the U.S. recently threatened visa restrictions and sanctions targeting countries that vote for an International Maritime Organization proposal to cut greenhouse-gas emissions from global shipping — a sector responsible for roughly 3% of global emissions. The warning framed the plan as an “unsanctioned global tax” and floated dock-access limits for ships from supporting nations.
I underestimated how much super-freighters cost in terms of carbon credits. So this is very much in line with that. Any thoughts on COP30 and the backtracking of the United States?
Tsukerman: That does not surprise me, particularly since the Trump administration has been skeptical of multilateral arrangements, especially those related to climate policy. That is not to say that Trump himself has been opposed to all forms of clean energy. In fact, he has viewed some of them as investment opportunities — particularly nuclear — aligning with a broader international trend. Still, he sees these sorts of international gatherings as a waste of time and money. To be fair, he is not entirely wrong in that regard, especially when it comes to the COP series of events.
There has been skepticism even among the hosts and participants, whether because some of the Biden administration’s pledges at those events have never materialized as promised, or because the events were, on occasion, mismanaged, or because the costs and the related climate arrangements ended up being substantially higher than the pledges associated with them.
Reaching consensus has become increasingly difficult because developing countries feel burdened by many of the priorities set by wealthier Western nations. There are still major disagreements over priorities, goals, and enforcement. There has also been a growing unwillingness to pledge substantial sums of money toward projects that are speculative, difficult to measure, or hard to enforce.
In general, these large global climate gatherings have generated more irony and skepticism than genuine commitment or action. Countries concerned about the impact of climate change can act independently or through bilateral and smaller agreements to provide aid where it is needed. There is a sense that trying to bring together states with vastly divergent goals and problems into a single decision-making structure is bound to backfire — because inevitably, some nations will be forced to accept burdens unrelated to their own situations, while others will bear disproportionate financial costs.
I’m not surprised that much of this is falling apart. Do I think Trump’s withdrawal of the U.S. from participation will have a huge impact beyond symbolism? I don’t think so. First, everyone has been expecting it. Second, as I mentioned, the Biden administration did not deliver much of the funding it had promised, so the U.S. was not a particularly impactful player except in words and rhetoric. And third, there are so many other problems that have nothing to do with U.S. participation that it will likely be overshadowed by broader concerns regardless.
Jacobsen: It is noteworthy that King Charles has stripped his younger brother, Andrew, of his title and enforcement rights at the Windsor home, according to a report from Buckingham Palace. This follows years of controversy and alleged association with Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes and related misconduct. It’s interesting that it took family intervention and decisive action for accountability where standard jurisprudence failed many legitimate victims of Epstein and others. Any thoughts?
Tsukerman: There are a few reasons why this is happening now, and how it all came together. First, the timing is not coincidental. This is unfolding just as Virginia Giuffre’s posthumous memoir is being released, bringing renewed public scrutiny. The combination of new publicity and the Epstein-related controversy in the United States has put Prince Andrew — or former Prince Andrew — back in the spotlight.
Second, other scandals are compounding the controversy because Andrew was also linked to questionable interactions with a suspected Chinese spy, raising questions about whether he was compromising national security at the same time.
Third, the growing role of Prince William, who has naturally assumed greater prominence as the Prince of Wales, is also shaping how the monarchy manages internal scandals. His influence represents a generational shift toward stricter accountability and image management, which may explain why the Palace acted more decisively this time.
Tsukerman: Prince William therefore has more weight within the royal family and is able to exert greater influence. He was likely dissatisfied with how the situation was handled previously, but now he has both the means and the authority to push for stronger internal measures — if only to prevent further controversy for the family, if not to advance justice for the victims of Epstein’s trafficking network. That is certainly a contributing factor.
That said, this does not mean there aren’t other measures coming. Precisely because Andrew has been stripped of his titles, he is now facing a kind of private investigation or prosecution within the United Kingdom that likely would not have been possible when he still enjoyed the protection of royal status. Now, the royal family will not shield him.
It will be easier to pursue legal action against him. Another factor is that it is entirely possible Andrew acted in collaboration with other former or then-contemporary U.K. government officials who were part of the Epstein network. There is also an effort to shield not just the Royal Family but the U.K. government itself from further scandal.
We know that a former U.K. ambassador to the United States was recently removed after revelations of his alleged connection to the network. It’s surprising that Prime Minister Starmer claimed he did not know about this when he appointed him, given that the scandal was not new. Regardless, there appears to be an effort to contain the fallout and limit how far this scandal spreads.
New revelations have also emerged about Sarah Ferguson’s possible involvement and even about Andrew and Sarah’s daughters potentially being beneficiaries of Epstein-linked financial connections. There has been a deliberate effort to protect the daughters from scandal; they are retaining their royal titles.
So there are several factors at play in why this has come together now. Is Andrew getting exactly what he deserves, or is he serving as a scapegoat for other corrupt elites? That is a reasonable question — but it is still positive that someone is finally being held accountable, especially after so many years of cynically abusing privilege, not to benefit humanity as he claimed, but to exploit vulnerable people and flaunt his protection from legal and political scrutiny.
Jacobsen: Reuters reports that Tanzanian opposition groups are alleging that around a hundred people have been killed in vote-related protests. The United Nations has called for a probe.
The U.N. Secretary-General has urged an investigation into allegations of excessive use of force. Credible reports indicate at least ten people were killed, though estimates vary, with some suggesting the toll could reach the lower end of double digits. The foreign ministers of Britain, Canada, and Norway issued a joint statement expressing concern.
Tsukerman: I love when they do that because it’s always so useful. Some of these officials just seem to issue statements for decoration — to hang on the wall.
Jacobsen: Still, this bears repeating. I’ve tried not to overstate this before, but I think it’s appropriate to critique the West — though that criticism should come with some necessary caveats.
Jacobsen: I gave a presentation to a peace school — it’s a sort of humanistic education program, a humanist school operating out of Toronto and Iran. In Iran, of course, it’s unregistered, but they have several hundred students. During that talk, I received a question about the West and the so-called Third World.
We throw around terms like “East” and “West,” “Third World” and “First World,” which raises the question — what exactly is the “Second World”? People try to update the language to sound more neutral: “developing” and “developed,” or “developing” and “more developing,” depending on their ideological stance.
My point in that Q&A session was that terms like “East” and “West,” even geographically, don’t make much sense. For instance, Korea and Japan are considered part of the “West,” yet depending on your reference point, that’s arbitrary.
Tsukerman: My favorite example is when people call Morocco part of the “Middle East,” even though it’s west of London.
Jacobsen: The point was that mass communication, as Marshall McLuhan discussed, and massive international travel since the Wright brothers have completely changed traditional frameworks. Definitional and geopolitical drift have further blurred those old distinctions. These terms can still be useful as conceptual placeholders, but we have to take them case by case.
When the West expresses “concern,” it often feels symbolic — and symbolism only matters when a society already has stable infrastructure. If you lack water, housing, and food, you don’t need “letters of concern.”
Tsukerman: Symbolic statements are for ambiguity; when facts are clear — for example, when there’s deadly force used against peaceful protesters — expressions of concern are hollow. In those cases, there should be consequences, not just concern.
Jacobsen: So yes, changing the terms is well intentioned, and critiques are understandable. Yet I think we’re all confused about how we use these terms in a globalized world. The physicist Michio Kaku often references the Kardashev Scale, a framework proposed by Nikolai Kardashev to classify civilizations by their energy use. Carl Sagan once estimated humanity’s level at about 0.7 — not yet planetary. I think both are correct: we’re an emergent global civilization, and these old categories will make less sense as we progress — if we make it that far.
Anyway, given this Tanzanian situation — the death toll, the alleged abuse of power, and the excessive use of force — what’s your analysis?
Tsukerman: It’s very clear that countries are being pulled in different directions by multiple, competing priorities. Domestically, the United Kingdom and Germany are both under significant political pressure. In Europe more broadly, there are serious security concerns stemming from Russia, as well as multiple ongoing conflicts — the war in Ukraine, continuing hostilities and controversy over Gaza, and Sudan, where there are horrifying allegations of genocide, including the recently documented massacre of civilians in a hospital by the Rapid Support Forces (RSF).
All of these crises demand substantial attention and resources. So when serious but more localized incidents occur — such as election violence in Tanzania — they’re often deprioritized compared to conflicts that pose global risks or directly affect Western security interests. It’s unfortunate, but not surprising.
What is particularly troubling is that, when it comes to African countries, there doesn’t seem to be any serious global task force or even dedicated government desks that take these crises beyond the “statement” phase into meaningful follow-up. Western diplomacy has become increasingly transactional — focused more on trade, stability, and conflict avoidance than on using diplomatic leverage to pressure authoritarian regimes or combat corruption and democratic backsliding.
There are not sufficient dedicated resources or specialized task forces — whether through coordinated international efforts, regional blocs, or individual nations — to follow up on critical crises in African countries, such as the one we’re discussing.
These incidents may not have long-term consequences, but they could. They might indicate that the opposition itself is prone to violence, or they might reveal that the government is mishandling the protests. Regardless, when there is even a significant likelihood that hundreds of people have been injured or killed following an election, it is deeply troubling.
European countries are increasingly recognizing Africa’s importance — whether in terms of access to critical minerals, counterterrorism cooperation, the global economy, or human capital in innovation and technology. It’s therefore very unfortunate that, despite this awareness, the West’s response continues to be limited to toothless statements — with no investigative authority, no follow-up mechanism, and no coherent strategy for support or accountability.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Irina.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/05
Marichka Baysa, founder and designer of Lvivna, reflects on a year of growth across Toronto Kids Fashion Week runways in Calgary, Edmonton, and Toronto, where blue-and-yellow pieces resonated with diaspora audiences while a red suit and new floral line connected with Toronto’s multicultural crowd. She details backstage realities, curating repeat work for Vyshyvanyj Vechir, and foregrounds Ontario’s 2025 mandate to teach the Holodomor, a step she welcomes for broader public awareness. As SUSK’s external relations lead, she reports revived campus clubs nationwide and a mentorship program. Lvivna’s mission remains heritage-forward modernity, with embroidery and flag motifs, and a forthcoming, everyday-wear Christmas capsule.
In this interview with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Baysa charts Lvivna’s year: blue-and-yellow pieces selling out with Ukrainian-Canadian audiences in Calgary and Edmonton, while a red suit and floral line speak to Toronto’s multicultural runway. She outlines the chaos and craft of backstage work, repeats curatorial choices for Vyshyvanyj Vechir, and doubles down on heritage—modern embroidery, flag motifs, and a forthcoming everyday Christmas capsule. Wearing her SUSK hat, Baysa describes reviving student clubs nationwide, building mentorships, and partnering with UCC. She welcomes Ontario’s 2025 Holodomor mandate, expecting broader awareness to follow. Children’s couture pauses; women’s wear leads amid industry retrenchment and war-time resilience through the winter.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: We are here again with Marichka Baysa, founder of the kidswear label Lvivna, after about a year—or maybe less. This time, we are discussing a new set of questions. Lvivna appeared on multiple runways at Toronto Kids Fashion Week in 2025, including Calgary, Edmonton, and Toronto. What design unified those shows?
Marichka Baysa: Toronto was different from Calgary and Edmonton because those two cities have long-standing Ukrainian-Canadian communities and very active local organizations. In pastyears, many Ukrainians who immigrated to Canada have settled mainly in Edmonton and Calgary, though quite a few have also moved to Toronto recently.
Most of the blue-and-yellow Lvivna designs sold out. Those were the most popular in Calgary and Edmonton because they resonated strongly with the Ukrainian-Canadian community. I reached out to the Ukrainian Canadian Congress’s local branches and offered tickets to the shows—they were very supportive.
Toronto was different because it is a more multicultural city. The red suit received the most applause, as did the new collection featuring floral designs—those connected better with the diverse audience. People from Europe came up to me afterward and said they recognized the modern cut and Eastern European influence. Meanwhile, Canadians and people from the Middle East or Hispanic backgrounds told me, “It is beautiful, but we do not really understand it.”
The new floral collection drew many comments, like “It is beautiful” and “Wow, it is painted.” That is what I heard from people there.
Jacobsen: For the Vyshyvanyj Vechir 2025 event at Palais Royale in Toronto, what was your curatorial brief?
Baysa: It was essentially the same as last year since the event was repeated. I did not have the new collection ready yet, so I showed the same one with a few added pieces. Everything was quite similar this year, although it didn’t go as smoothly as before because part of the organizing team was away. I was managing another designer’s collection, styling the models, and running my own line at the same time. If you’ve ever been backstage at a fashion show, you know it’s chaos.
It’s hectic—you’re constantly looking for models, telling them, “Please don’t go anywhere.” Young girls want to take photos or have a drink, so you’re always trying to corral them. When I finally got everyone back to the backstage area, the organizers and I were frustrated because the models weren’t listening. This year was challenging, but it still turned out well in the end.
The main thing is that even if you don’t know exactly what you’re doing on stage, act like you do so the audience believes it. That was my focus. If you don’t know how to walk, pretend you do and work it out in the moment.
My goal was to have everyone ready, relaxed, and smiling on stage. We had the same challenges as before, but regardless of what they were wearing or how nervous they were, they managed to relax and perform confidently in front of the audience.
Baysa: Some designs—mine and those of other designers—had elements at the back or front that required the models to adjust their hair, so I constantly reminded them about that too.
Jacobsen: Ontario’s decision to mandate Holodomor education in high schools takes effect in 2025. How are you translating policy into practice?
Baysa: First of all, I’m thrilled it happened. I’m grateful to Minister Stephen Lecce, former Minister of Education, who introduced the policy, and to Minister Jill Dunlop, who continues to support it. Both have done a great deal for the Ukrainian community. I know them personally—we work in the same building—so I often see them in the elevator or the lobby.
The Holodomor is one of the most tragic events in Ukrainian history, and it’s crucial to discuss it. I’m happy this policy has gone through and is now part of the education system. We’re teaching the children. Of course, Ukrainian schools in Canada have always taught about the Holodomor and other parts of our history, but that was limited to a few Ukrainian-language schools in the Greater Toronto Area. Now, not only Ukrainian or European children will learn about it—Canadian students in general will.
The Holodomor is comparable to, or perhaps even greater in scale than, other genocides. It’s similar in nature to the Holocaust, which took place only about a decade later. There were three major Holodomors: the first in 1921–23, the largest in 1932–33, and another in 1946–47. Then the Holocaust began in 1941 and lasted through much of the Second World War. So there’s roughly a ten-year gap between these two horrific tragedies that devastated Eastern Europe.
The Holocaust also took place in Ukraine, under both Nazi and Soviet occupation. For example, in my hometown, Lviv, there was the third-largest Jewish ghetto in Europe. It’s important to acknowledge that, just as Jewish people have done a remarkable job of ensuring the world never forgets the Holocaust, we now have a similar responsibility to ensure that Ukrainian suffering under Stalin’s regime is remembered.
We’re talking about it much more now, and I’m glad that local media are beginning to cover it too. When I first came to Canada in 2022, the Ukrainian diaspora would hold memorial events, give speeches, and observe Holodomor Remembrance Day—but outside our community, few people even knew about it. When I spoke to Canadian or international friends, they would ask, “What is that? A celebration?” I would have to explain that it’s a memorial for a tragedy caused by Soviet policies.
Now, awareness is growing. We’ll see how Canadian schools handle it in practice, but I hope the topic remains part of the curriculum. I remember attending the 2023 announcement where Minister Lecce officially declared the Holodomor a mandatory part of the Ontario curriculum. Several MPPs and community representatives were there. It’s been about a year or two since implementation, and from the Ukrainian schools’ perspective, we’re teaching it even more actively.
From what I’ve heard—since I don’t have children myself—Canadian schools are also beginning to discuss it. My neighbours’ kids, who are five or six, come home from school speaking English fluently and tell me, “We learned about the Holodomor today.” It’s wonderful to see that level of awareness starting so young.
Jacobsen: Well, when they have a runway show, you’ll be right there.
Baysa: Exactly! Some of the kids told me, “This happened to Ukrainians?” and I said, “Yes, that’s our history.” They were surprised that such a tragedy had taken place. So yes—it’s working. The Holodomor is now in the curriculum and mandatory, at least in elementary school. Ontario Education Minister Stephen Lecce announces the province is introducing new mandatory learning about the Holodomor famine of 1932-33 and its impacts on the Ukrainian community in Canada. The subject will be taught as part of the Grade 10 Canadian History course and will begin in September 2025.
Its now mandatory for Gr. 10 History course. From what I’ve seen, most high school students I’ve spoken with in Toronto and Mississauga briefly cover World War I and World War II, and, of course, the Holocaust. But I haven’t heard them mention the Holodomor. It may still be optional for teachers to include it. At least in elementary schools, it’s being taught, which is essential. High schools is now following the same system.
Jacobsen: In a prior interview with International Policy Digest, you linked SUSK outreach to newcomer support. Any measurable wins this year? Any caveats in the responses?
Baysa: We accomplished a lot this year, though not just me alone, but as a team. Every May, we hold a board election and a presidential election or re-election, depending on the cycle. This year, we have a new president, and about half the team is new. I’m thrilled to see new faces and new students. Some are from Ukraine, but the majority were born here in Canada, which is terrific—they’re still strongly supporting Ukrainian values.
In terms of measurable achievements, we now have a Ukrainian Students’ Club in every university across Canada, except for a few colleges where communication has been inconsistent, so we’re still verifying whether those clubs are active. Otherwise, yes—every major university has one.
This year, I’m thrilled because it was my initiative. Last year, we didn’t have any active Ukrainian student clubs in Eastern Canada. Now we do—in Halifax, Nova Scotia, and St. John’s, Newfoundland. I contacted a friend there. We found students willing to start a club. We also reactivated the club in Vancouver and reached out to every inactive chapter across the country. Now they have funding and organizational support, which is excellent.
Our partnership with the Ukrainian Canadian Congress (UCC) has also improved significantly since SUSKgot the new president, especially since the summer. The students are energetic and have more time to work on our projects. Personally, it’s all the same to me—summer or winter; I’m always working—but the new leadership really strengthened communication and collaboration.
We’re also organizing the Arts Night event, where Lvivna will showcase its designs. It’s happening on November 13, 2025 and will include an exhibition of artworks by Ukrainian and Ukrainian-Canadian artists. The goal is to raise funds for SUSK and for the Help Us Help Children of Ukraine organization, which supports children affected by the war in Ukraine.
It’s been a great year overall. We’re already preparing for next year’s SUSK Congress, and I’m optimistic about the direction we’re heading in.
As the Director of External Relations, I’m currently looking for new students to join upcoming events—mainly to expand the network, meet new people, and connect them with Ukrainian youth. We’re also developing a mentorship program to pair students with professionals in their fields so they can receive guidance, learn practical skills, and gain insight into their future careers. If all goes well, we plan to launch the program next year.
Jacobsen: Ukrainian Fashion Week 2025 spotlighted resilience and heritage. Resilience is evident, given the war context. As for heritage, based on my conversations with people in Ukraine, it remains a core national value. How does Lvivna’s craft align with that?
Baysa: I agree. Heritage has become one of the most vital themes since the full-scale invasion. Over the past few years, we’ve spoken constantly about our cultural heritage—what defines it, and how it differs from Russian heritage. Historically, Russian culture appropriated parts of ours. They didn’t inherit it; they steal it. That’s why heritage keeps us alive as people—it’s what sustains us as a nation, especially for those of us far from home.
Canada is oceans away from Ukraine. In Europe, it’s easier to stay connected to one’s roots, but here it requires deliberate effort.
Jacobsen: For example, my family has Dutch heritage. My grandfather was part of the Dutch resistance during World War II, and in 2016, our family received recognition from Yad Vashem for sheltering a Jewish couple during the Holocaust. The Dutch were also victims of Nazi occupation, though in different ways than the Jews, and many risked their lives to help others under a brutal regime.
Baysa: That’s exactly it! What I’ve noticed is that before the full-scale invasion, Ukrainians in Europe didn’t emphasize their heritage as much—it was simply part of life. But in Canada, heritage has always been the cornerstone of the Ukrainian diaspora. People here had limited opportunities to visit or return home, so cultural traditions, language, and community became lifelines for identity.
For Lvivna, Ukrainian heritage is one of the brand’s foundation stones. My interpretation focuses on the heritage of our traditions, language, and colours—those elements carry meaning beyond aesthetics. When I visited Ukraine recently, I noticed how modernized everything has become, especially in fashion. Many Ukrainian designers now aim to emulate global or American design styles and colour palettes. That may help internationally, but for me, preserving our unique heritage is far more critical.
For Lvivna, the essence lies in expressing ancient Ukrainian desings, and traditional househod items, like motanka doll—often depicted on the Lvivna garments and blazers. I also created a small patriotic collection featuring the national colours, blue and yellow. In one series, I painted women with the pigeon with blue and yellow hues, symbolizing freedom and our national spirit. Those are the colours of our flag—our visual identity—and we should be proud of them.
As a preview, I’m currently developing a new Christmas collection that will incorporate more traditional Ukrainian elements into wearable, everyday fashion. I want to design pieces that can be worn casually—not just for cultural performances or concerts—but that still express elegance and tradition. The goal is subtle recognition: garments that speak of heritage without shouting it. From a distance, you can still tell—they carry that quiet, unmistakable Ukrainian character.
You would definitely stand out wearing something like that. It captures attention immediately. Heritage is significant, and portraying it through clothing—whether in fashion, art, or design—is essential. The small details matter most. It’s not only about large embroidered patterns or bold prints on Lvivna garments but also about the subtle elements. I’m now designing a new collection and accompanying brochures for Lvivna, which will highlight specifically Lviv’s cultural heritage in next year’s line.
Jacobsen: About Toronto Kids Fashion Week, how does that work, especially given that kids are naturally energetic, rambunctious, and clearly don’t need coffee to stay lively?
Baysa: They definitely don’t need coffee! But that’s an excellent and essential question. Unfortunately, the fashion industry in Toronto—and in Canada generally—is still evolving. That’s the diplomatic way to put it.
Toronto Kids Fashion Week operates more as a platform that gathers designers willing to participate under their terms. Once designers sign a contract, the organizers showcase them across North America. There isn’t a strict framework or clear criteria for trends or for what qualifies as children’s wear. Whether that’s fortunate or not, I’ll refrain from judging.
When it comes to trends in children’s fashion, I’d suggest looking more toward Europe or major international brands, since smaller designers tend to focus on custom, stylized pieces. For Lvivna, the kids’ collection is entirely custom-made. I only produce it upon order, not for public showcases, because children’s fashion presents a unique challenge: kids grow fast. What fits this year won’t fit next year.
That approach doesn’t align well with Lvivna’s core philosophy, which emphasizes longevity, craftsmanship, and heritage—creating pieces meant to last for years, even to be passed down as heirlooms, like jewelry or art. Children’s wear doesn’t lend itself to that ideal, since it’s so short-lived.
From experience backstage at fashion shows, I’ve learned that working with kids can be chaotic. No matter how careful you are, something will spill, rip, or stain. I’ve seen tea, juice, and popsicles all end up on the garments. I’ve had to clean my own designs after shows, and I’ve watched other designers do the same. You can’t control a group of twenty excited children running around before a show.
When I compared that to adult models—like at the Vyshyvanyj Vechir event I mentioned earlier—handling children was far more demanding, even with three assistants, the backstage environment was hectic and stressful.
One memorable moment: some designers showcased elegant white gowns for children. After the show, none were white anymore—they were gray, light pink, even slightly black from the stage floor and makeup. So that’s another challenge. Kids’ clothing, once worn a few times, quickly loses its pristine condition, which is why parents rarely invest in expensive children’s couture.
Women’s wear, on the other hand, remains far more practical and in higher demand. It’s not just a matter of trend—it’s longevity and utility. Especially in today’s economic and geopolitical climate, adult fashion continues to sustain both creative expression and market viability in a way kids’ fashion rarely can.
As you may have noticed, major international fashion brands are currently seeing sales decline. So, children’s wear is unlikely to be profitable or in high demand anytime soon. Even women’s wear is shifting—fashion is moving back toward classic, minimalist collections: refined cuts, muted colours, and simplicity over extravagance. I expect the industry will continue this correction over the next six months, both stylistically and economically. For that reason, we’ll be focusing less on children’s lines for now.
Jacobsen: Anything last items to plug?
Baysa: Here’s something you might find interesting: Zlata Barciuk, one of my students, is also a singer. She’s turning ten this year—a beautiful, talented girl.
I’m designing another outfit for Zlata’s concert in December. I’m doing the whole look—makeup, hair, clothing, how she presents herself on stage, everything. We’ve had much preparation for that. I still have several custom orders to complete for clients who commissioned pieces two or three months ago. That’s been taking up much of my time.
Then there are upcoming community events—some international forums, too, which I might attend. I still try to make time for the gym or a ballet class—I used to dance, and I miss it. But all my weekends are booked with meetings, interviews, art classes, or work for Lvivna.
It’s been hectic. Honestly, there’s no “life”-work balance. I don’t even know when my next vacation will be—December, when things slow down a little because of Christmas and New Year’s. People usually take some time off then, so it should be easier.
Politics and the arts are deeply connected. I have friends in the Ministry of Tourism, Culture, and Gaming, and it’s been lovely going to the ballet with them or discussing art over lunch. When we meet with stakeholders, it’s often helpful to talk about art—it helps build rapport. There are so many beautiful paintings in the legislature, which also makes for good conversation.
When I was in Ukraine, I met several incredible artists and the curator of a relatively new gallery—only two years old—already hosting international exhibitions. She’s a fantastic woman from my hometown, and she asked for my help organizing an exhibition at the Royal Ontario Museum. My political work and connections have helped her reach the right people and explore those opportunities. So yes, politics and art absolutely intersect.
But as you meet more and more people, you have less and less time for anything else—especially personal life. It’s all work now.
Jacobsen: In the long run, that pace tends to compound. Five years from now, people will start reaching out about the projects you’ve done, and that momentum will grow. You’ll probably become more selective—but also more efficient.
Baysa: I’m looking forward to that.
Jacobsen: What events should people look forward to in November and December, as the year wraps up? Especially regarding Ukraine, several experts I’ve spoken with emphasize two urgent issues: children returning home and the heating systems, particularly redundancies, since winters can be brutal.
Baysa: Yes, this winter is already very harsh for Ukrainians. I’ve been speaking with friends in Kyiv, and they’ve had power outages lasting half a day or half a night—no electricity, no heating—and it’s only the end of October. From what I’ve heard, this winter may be the worst one yet, unfortunately.
In terms of upcoming events, definitely, Rebuild Ukraine will be a major one. The Ukrainian World Congress is also organizing a similar event, but that one will take place in Poland, in Poznań, if I’m not mistaken. I understand that for a Canadian audience, it may be difficult to travel there, but it will be an excellent event.
The University of Toronto is also hosting a lecture on November 12 by a professor who will speak about Ukrainian heritage—specifically, music in Ukrainian culture—but unfortunately, it coincides with the G7 meeting. So we’ll need to decide which one to attend, since we can’t do both.
Those are the major events I can think of right now. The Ukrainian Canadian Congress in Calgary is very active and will be hosting several cultural events. In Toronto, the big political ones are the ones I already mentioned. On the artistic side, some Ukrainian musicians are coming to perform for the Christmas season, so we’ll be having concerts and carol events.
Holodomor Remembrance Day is coming up, and November 8 is the Veterans’ Remembrance Day for the Second World War. That one’s more of a cultural remembrance event than a large gathering, but still significant. And there’s always something new coming up—when I hear of it, I’ll forward it to you.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Marichka.
Baysa: Thank you for your time. I hope I answered your questions satisfactorily. I wish you a good Sunday—well, what’s left of the morning, at least.
Jacobsen: Thank you. It’s pretty early here—coffee will suffice for now.
Baysa: My pleasure. Have a good day.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/04
Tyler Evans, MD, MS, MPH, AAHIVS, DTM&H, FIDSA, is CEO, Chief Medical Officer, and Co-Founder of the Wellness Equity Alliance. A physician trained in infectious diseases and global health, he has dedicated his career to bridging medicine and justice. From the streets of American cities to conflict zones in Africa, his work challenges structural inequities that dictate health outcomes. He has led large-scale vaccination campaigns, advanced care for people living with HIV, hepatitis, and TB, and advocated for gender-affirming and migrant health access. He is the author of Pandemics, Poverty, and Politics: Decoding the Social and Political Drivers of Pandemics from Plague to COVID-19.
In this interview with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Evans is an infectious disease physician and CEO of the Wellness Equity Alliance. His work spans street medicine, pandemic response, and global health equity, with a focus on HIV, hepatitis, TB, and gender-affirming care. He emphasizes justice-driven healthcare, human-centered emergency responses, and systemic reforms to dismantle barriers to access.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What first drew you to street medicine and health equity?
Dr. Tyler Evans: I started my career in some of the most resource-constrained environments in the world, and I saw how structural barriers, not biology, decide who lives and who dies. Street medicine is about flipping the script. Instead of asking people to come to systems that were never designed for them, we bring care directly to sidewalks, shelters, and schools. It is about justice as much as it is about medicine.
Jacobsen: How does that mission guide your daily decisions?
Evans: Every choice I make comes back to access. If a decision does not open a door for someone who has been historically locked out of care, it is probably not worth making. Health equity is not a line item in a budget. It is the filter I run every action through.
Jacobsen: From HIV to hepatitis C and TB, where are we losing ground?
Evans: We have the tools such as antivirals, direct-acting agents, and diagnostics, but we keep leaving people behind. Housing insecurity, incarceration, and stigma continue to fuel these epidemics. We do not fail because science falls short. We fail because our systems decide some lives are expendable.
Jacobsen: What lessons from vaccinating millions against COVID-19 should shape any of the next emergency responses?
Evans: Trust is as critical as the vaccine itself. You can airlift pallets of doses, but if communities do not trust the messengers, uptake will stall. During COVID, we saw that community health workers, local leaders, and grassroots partnerships moved the needle more than any federal press conference. The next response has to be human-centered, not just logistics-driven.
Jacobsen: Which policy changes would expand access to gender-affirming care?
Evans: We need federal protection that treats gender-affirming care as essential healthcare, not optional or elective. Insurance mandates, provider training requirements, and anti-discrimination enforcement must be codified. Otherwise, geography and politics will continue to decide whether someone can access life-saving care.
Jacobsen: How are health systems adapting to the needs of transgender and nonbinary patients?
Evans: Slowly, and often superficially. A rainbow on a hospital website does not mean much if intake forms still misgender patients or if there is no endocrinologist trained in hormone therapy within 200 miles. True adaptation means redesigning systems with trans and nonbinary voices at the table, not as afterthoughts but as architects.
Jacobsen: What practical steps reduce barriers for migrants, refugees, and people experiencing homelessness?
Evans: Three things: mobile care, legal protections, and cultural competence. If we do not meet people where they are, whether in encampments, detention centers, or border crossings, we miss them entirely. Pairing medical care with immigration advocacy and trauma-informed practices is what truly moves the needle.
Jacobsen: Your current work in the DRC focuses on women affected by conflict-related sexual violence. What mental-health supports actually work in that context?
Evans: Healing does not come from parachuting in Western models of therapy. What works is building layered systems of care such as peer support groups, trained community health workers, spiritual resources, and when available, formal counseling. Mental health in these contexts is not about erasing trauma. It is about restoring agency, dignity, and the possibility of a future.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Dr. Evans.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/03
Michael Ashley Schulman, CFA, Chief Investment Officer of Running Point Capital Advisors, offers expert insight into current global financial dynamics. Schulman offers timely insights into macroeconomic trends, US fiscal policy, and the global tech landscape.
In this interview with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Michael Ashley Schulman, CFA, Chief Investment Officer of Running Point Capital Advisors, analyzes global financial dynamics amid a surge in debt, shifting trade flows, and emerging digital currencies. Schulman explains how global debt ballooned to $338 trillion in the first half of 2025, the fading effects of front-loading ahead of tariff hikes, and the risks flagged by the BIS regarding fiscal sustainability. He also unpacks UNCTAD’s warnings on policy uncertainty, the one-year extension of AGOA, and the IMF’s framework on stablecoins. Schulman emphasizes clarity, fiscal discipline, and innovation as critical for investors.
Interview conducted September 25, 2025, in the morning.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Global debt neared $338 trillion. What drove the H1 surge? (Reuters)
Michael Ashley Schulman: Credit cards, Labubu dolls, and Pop Demon Hunters merchandise, obviously.
However, seriously, there are several reasons for the debt surge, and we have regularly briefed our investment clients on them. First, cheapish money came back. Borrowing got easier and less expensive than it was a couple of years ago; therefore, corporate CFOs hit the refinance button on their liabilities, pushed out maturity dates, added a little to their debt stack, and provided some financing cushion for those prescient enough to forecast turbulence coming from the US’s new administration.
Second, the US dollar softened; this means that the dollar lost a little strength versus other currencies, which makes dollar debts slightly easier to manage for non-U.S. borrowers (like emerging market governments and foreign companies) and that can nudge global liquidity up. Third, governments and companies rushed to lock in longer-maturity loans and bonds, so they would not have to refinance at possibly worse rates. Fourth, many foreign central banks had already been ahead of the Fed in lowering rates over the last 12 months, making their own local currency debt easier to shoulder.
To summarize, borrowing costs eased slightly, and the US dollar lost some momentum, prompting governments and companies to rush to lock in longer-dated loans before interest rates increased again. The result is more total debt now and lower refinancing pressure for the next couple of years, but bigger interest bills down the road, especially if the dollar firms back up. Thus, that’s how liabilities ballooned by a mere $21 trillion (with a “t”) in six months to $337.7 trillion. Think of it as the fiscal version of “buy now, cry later”.
The biggest players were the usual suspects: the U.S., China, Japan, France, the UK, and Germany. The new normal seems to be higher debt-to-GDP ratios!
This means that duration risk (or interest rate sensitivity) has increased for balance sheets, and rollover walls have become taller for emerging markets. Apologies, I’m using jargon; a rollover wall is a large cluster of debt that all comes due around the same time.
The risk is that this surge is like pumping helium into an already stretched balloon; it’s fun unless it pops. For the US, higher debt servicing eats into fiscal flexibility; for emerging markets, FX or foreign exchange risk can become a ticking time bomb in the next downcycle. Conservative investors may want to consider biasing toward issuers with steady cash flows and room in their budgets, and be choosy with respect to highly indebted names that need constant access to markets.
Jacobsen: Front-loading ahead of tariff hikes propped up trade in H1. How does the OECD Interim Outlook expect unwinding into Q4?
Schulman: Companies wisely panic-bought early and pulled orders forward before higher US tariffs; in other words, they stuffed their supply chains to the gills, which is basically the macro equivalent of carb-loading before a marathon you’re not trained to run. I call this warehouse first, argue later. We’ve often spoken with our ultra-high-net-worth clients who are business owners about this.
Front-loading propped up first-half trade numbers and pulled sales forward, which will then leave a softer patch as inventories get worked down. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) is saying the same. As we move into year-end, the surge fades, and shipping may slow versus last year. Akin to what we’ve discussed previously, expect softer global growth and choppier margins as supply chains rebalance.
This could be temporarily troubling for export-driven economies such as Germany, Korea, and those in Southeast Asia. It isn’t or won’t be a slowdown so much as it will be the echo of demand that was pulled forward.
For investors, don’t just read the data, read the room. Political risk is a macro driver, not a footnote! Investors might question whether to chase the ‘everything’s booming’ story versus favouring steady service sectors, artificial intelligence capital expenditure beneficiaries, and firms that aren’t one tariff headline away from a migraine. Analysts are leaning into companies with pricing power and shorter supply chains, while being wary of manufacturers that operate on thin margins and have long shipping routes.
Jacobsen: Yield curves steepened. Risk assets rallied. What fiscal risks does the BIS Quarterly Review (Sept 2025) see here?
Schulman: The Bank for International Settlements (BIS) risk list is not a cheery read, but you’d expect a list of risks to look rather dismal, right? BIS is waving a red flag, concerned about a divergence between buoyant stock markets, driven by investor optimism, and the bond market’s rising anxiety over government debt, which the growing premium investors highlight demand for holding long-term government bonds. This is not new; the BIS has flagged government debt trajectories and the lack of fiscal discipline as the most serious threat to macroeconomic and financial stability for some time. Rising government debt, investment market vulnerability from leverage, fiscal sustainability concerns evidenced by a US debt downgrade earlier this year and rising bond yields in France, are newer to the list next to longer-term concerns, including climate-related costs, growing public-sector funding needs, and the potential for a doom-loop between governments and banks in emerging markets.
So, yes, long-term interest rates rose, and paradoxically, stocks climbed as different sets of investors envisioned near-term growth hopes, while others saw bigger borrowing costs down the road. Governments running persistent deficits will feel the pinch as interest consumes a fatter slice of tax revenue; that means less room for new programs or tax cuts without some sort of trade-offs.
Risk-averse investors may want to maintain some high-quality credit investments or bonds as ballast in their portfolios and prefer companies that can fund themselves without tapping markets every quarter, and avoid overpaying for stories that only work when money remains easy. Historically, steeper yield curves have warned that we are in a late-cycle economy, but they don’t always get it right.
We could see a slight stock market pullback in October, especially if the US government shuts down, but hopefully followed by a bounce back in November or December!
Jacobsen: UNCTAD’s Global Trade Update (Sept 2025) flags policy uncertainty as a deeper drag than tariffs. Any thoughts?
Schulman: Agreed. Tariffs you can price; policy whiplash you can’t. A known tariff is like a speed bump;; you slow down and keep going. Policy. Policy flip-flops, on the other hand, are road closures, where you stop, reroute, make a U-turn, or cancel the trip. We’ve walked our multifamily office clients through these scenarios.
For multinationals and supply chains, this is a whack-a-mole environment. The UN Trade and Development (UNCTAD) September update attributes the drag or slowdown to rule changes, carve-outs, and sudden restrictions that force more costly and longer routes, as well as freeze capital expenditures. Unclear rules, surprise bans, and shifting exemptions are toxins in business planning; they delay investment and reroute supply chains in costly ways. Government subsidies and credit lines for businesses are a band-aid; the real fix is clearer timelines and fewer sudden rule changes.
Some investment analysts are rewarding companies with logistic chains that have contractual visibility and diversified lanes, not just the lowest bill of lading. Single-path supply chains are potential Halloween horror flicks.
Jacobsen: With a reported one-year African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) extension amid US tariff shifts, how much cushion would that give exporters?
Schulman: You are into acronyms today, aren’t you? Too many of them and we might become acro-numb, lol.
The African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) was signed into law a quarter century ago by Bill Clinton and is set to expire at the end of September. A one-year AGOA extension is akin to giving someone 12 more months on a lease, generous if you’re a fruit fly. It’s a geopolitical olive branch in a tariff storm, offering African exporters a small, temporary moat against rising protectionism. A year buys some time, but not certainty. It’s an extension to avoid an immediate cutoff of preferential, duty-free access to the American market on more than 1,800 African products from over 30 countries, and to avoid significant economic disruption. That’s enough to keep apparel and auto supply chains from seizing up, but too short to make big new factory bets. US credibility as a long-term partner versus China and other global players is also on the line here, and our credibility is wobbling like Jell-O. For US buyers, the extension offers modest price stability; for African exporters, their payrolls are temporarily saved while their capital expenditures are deferred.
Investors may see near-term relief for listed apparel buyers and investment-grade African sovereigns; however, the medium-term outlook hinges on a multi-year renewal.
Jacobsen: As stablecoins spread, what policy trade-offs top the list in the IMF’s September coverage?
Schulman: I’ve spoken to some of our family office clients about this. Stablecoins are like AI (artificial intelligence); everyone wants in, no one knows how to regulate it, and somebody’s probably lying about capabilities. The IMF’s September brief lays it bare; they say you can’t have stability, innovation, and monetary control all at once. Pick two. It’s the Monetary Trilemma, Web3 Edition.
The fascinating thing to me is the disconnect between the IMF and the US regarding stablecoins, and I’ve pointed this out in past conversations. The IMF sees stablecoins as a potential systemic risk if left to float freely outside central bank control; thus, they lean heavily toward having central banks or some equivalent public authority retain a leading role in settlement, oversight, or even synthetic central bank digital coin (CBDC) models, where private issuance is tightly tethered to public liabilities.
America, on the other hand, has explicitly legislated against giving its central bank, the Federal Reserve, retail CBDC powers. An executive order issued earlier this year effectively prohibits government agencies from issuing or promoting a CBDC domestically. The US is threading a middle path via the GENIUS Act, which has already been signed, allowing regulated institutions, such as banks, insured depositories, and approved non-banks, to issue payment stablecoins under tight reserve, supervision, and non-interest rules with 100% private reserve backing and transparency. So stablecoins are allowed, but the Fed won’t be the issuer. The US is betting innovation works better when the state is more of a referee than a player.
The IMF worries that if private stablecoins become de facto money in other jurisdictions, especially in countries with weak local currencies, central banks could lose monetary control. The US model provides private players with that function, although with tight oversight, betting that the dollar’s dominance and trust will curb excesses. As you can tell, this fascinates me. I could go down a rabbit hole here, but I will refrain.
From an investor’s point of view, regulatory clarity will likely help solidify the winners, namely fully reserved, well-supervised,, and compliant issuers. The long-term losers are probably those that are under-collateralized and opaque.
Jacobsen: Any closing remarks?
Schulman: Thanks, yes, in summary, for trade, the first half of 2025 was front-loaded and Q4 will be the comedown with tariff drag and policy jitters. Big picture, the world is racking up debt like a teenager with a new credit card, trade is jumpy like it just downed three Red Bulls, and the BIS is flagging fiscal policy like it’s an overhyped IPO. As long as economies continue to grow, debt burdens are manageable, and we can potentially outgrow them and inflate them away. Meanwhile, stablecoins are spreading faster than a viral TikTok video. In this macro circus, policy clarity is the real unicorn.
As always, thank you for your timely questions and the opportunity to share with your readers the same perspectives, insights, and guidance we provide to our family office clients.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Michael.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/03
Danielle Foster is a domestic violence survivor, entrepreneur, and advocate dedicated to empowering others through financial independence and trauma-informed workplace practices. After surviving years of emotional, psychological, and economic abuse, she rebuilt her life as a single mother and later became a business owner supporting women, veterans, and military spouses. Through her company, Foster creates safe, supportive environments where survivors and families can thrive professionally while healing personally. She also uses social media to raise awareness about domestic violence and encourage open dialogue, helping others recognize warning signs, rebuild confidence, and transition from survival to self-sufficiency and empowerment.
In this interview with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Danielle Foster recounts her journey from surviving domestic violence to founding a trauma-informed company that helps others regain independence and stability. Foster discusses the emotional and financial dimensions of abuse, the repeated cycle of leaving and returning, and the pivotal moment that led her to safety. She emphasizes the importance of sharing survivor stories, setting workplace boundaries, and promoting mental health. Through honesty and empathy, Foster illustrates how advocacy, financial independence, and supportive environments can transform survivors into empowered individuals who lead others toward healing and resilience.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: I always approach survivor stories with a chronological mindset rather than a snapshot or patchwork one. When you were in that relationship, what was the feeling at the time? What were some of the triggers—because usually it’s not just one thing—that formed the constellation of catalysts for you to decide, “I’m going to take my son, I’m going to leave, and I’m going to rebuild my life.” This ultimately took over 448 consecutive days of work across three jobs. What was the feeling when you realized something was very wrong, leading to those moments that pushed you to get out?
Danielle Foster: As is common for many survivors in a domestic violence situation, it took me six times to leave. I would say that by the fourth time, I really realized this person did not appreciate or love me, and I knew something was wrong. Many people assume physical abuse is the worst harm, but the psychological and emotional abuse often causes the deepest wounds. It puts you into a routine where you feel like the worst person in the world. I don’t know how else to explain it other than that the physical didn’t affect me as much as the psychological and emotional. Financial control is also one of the biggest reasons many domestic violence survivors—or victims at the time—don’t leave, because we don’t feel like we have anywhere to go. You’re scared to go to your family or friends for help.
By the fourth time, I had started pushing my family and friends away. It was the first time I felt that my son wasn’t safe, and I knew that I either had to get out or figure something out. The biggest trigger for me was the fact that—this may sound strange—he would threaten to die by suicide if I left. It was about control. When you have children in an abusive relationship, the abuser can use them against you, and that’s another major fear. The idea that my son could be left with this person and I would have no control—because, unfortunately, no matter what, he was the biological father—was another reason many of us stay.
But the last time, I have to be honest with you, a police officer told me—because law enforcement is often called to DV situations—“This is the 20th time I’ve come to your house. The next time, I’ll be pulling you and your son out in body bags. You have to leave.” That was a massive awakening for me. It came from a stranger, and it scared me. So I left with my son and nothing else. I just went and started over.
Jacobsen: Two points in that restart story stood out. The second was when you said, “This might sound a little weird, but he would threaten to commit suicide.” The first thing that came to mind was coercive control. For readers, can you explain the degree to which an abuser can—though not in every case—go to extraordinary lengths to justify control over you, even to the point of threatening suicide?
Foster: That is 100% true. Think about it—you never want to feel like you’re responsible for someone else’s life in that way. It’s an enormous fear when someone says that to you. You feel trapped and don’t know what to do. That situation, thankfully, didn’t happen, but I think most women have that sensitivity: “Oh my goodness, I’m the one in the wrong.” That’s the entire mindset—being controlled into believing you’re wrong and they’re right. You really have to break out of that mindset, and that’s not an easy thing to do.
Jacobsen: The first part that stood out was the number six rather than one—you noted that the realization came around the fourth time. Why? This is a little different from a roller coaster—though obviously it’s one emotionally. This feels more like recidivism, a term that’s very American. To use it in context, I’d say it applies here because there’s a sense of literally entering and exiting one another’s lives. It has that roller coaster feel, but “recidivism” seems more appropriate because it implies a beginning and an end—like an anthology of chapters you don’t want to keep writing. Why the entering and exiting of one another’s lives over and over again? Why is that the pattern?
Foster: The first time you leave is usually after the first physical altercation. You realize something’s wrong, but then they say, “I’m so sorry,” and you think, “It was just a one-time thing.” You remember the person they were before this happened, and you question how it got to that point. Then things start getting worse. They control the money, leaving you without any finances. They take control of the household. They make you feel as though you’re the one to blame—that everything happening is your fault. The emotional abuse makes you go back and forth because you keep forgiving them, but in reality, you’re the one asking for forgiveness because you’ve been made to believe it’s your fault.
It takes a long time to see it clearly. After the fourth time, I went back again. The fifth time was physical again, and the sixth was very bad. That was when the police officer told me what he had done, and I knew I had to get out. Sometimes it takes an outsider coming in and saying something, but you can’t just tell someone to leave. They’re not in the right mental state. They have to reach that realization on their own. My parents and family didn’t know until the very end. That’s what happens a lot of the time—you hide it because you’re embarrassed and don’t know how to ask for help. You think everything is your fault, and that belief becomes part of the abuse. It’s a cycle you eventually have to break yourself. Some women can’t break it, unfortunately—and some men can’t either. Men are domestic violence survivors too.
Jacobsen: It’s strange how the sense of blame works. In the end, it’s technically a choice to stay, but it’s a coerced choice within a warped context. When they finally do leave, it’s often accompanied by an awakening to how narrow their perception had become—tunnel vision shaped by stress, trauma, and distorted rationales that create what might feel like intimacy but is really an unhealthy illusion. I hesitate even to call it intimacy.
Foster: Yes. For women and men who are stuck in those circumstances—whether they’re being physically abused, emotionally abused, or trapped financially—when they finally get out, the most important thing they need is to hear other people’s stories. They need to know they’re not alone. It’s an incredibly lonely time in your life. Many people don’t recognize the signs until someone else describes them, or a family member, friend, or something they see online makes them realize something’s wrong. Social media can actually help with that—when people see others sharing experiences, they think, “Wait, my relationship isn’t supposed to be like that.”
The signs are always there—it’s just that different people experience different kinds of domestic violence situations. Often, when the physical abuse begins, that’s when people realize that the financial, mental, emotional, and sometimes sexual abuse had been there the entire time. It’s not until they’re physically hurt that they think, “Wait, what’s happening?” Financial control is often the primary reason people don’t leave.
There are so many organizations that help survivors get back on their feet. Many charities assist domestic violence victims by providing shelter, protection, and resources to rebuild their lives. The hardest part is that many survivors don’t know how to leave. They’ve been isolated from family and friends, leaving them feeling completely alone.
Although I wish someone had told me how to do it, I had to figure it out on my own. That’s difficult to explain to people who’ve never been through it, but leaving has to come from within. You have to reach the point where you genuinely want to go—otherwise, you won’t.
I always try to recognize the signs in others and speak up when I see them. People have come to me to talk about their situations. I’m a strong advocate for domestic violence awareness and for creating a culture where it’s okay to talk about it. It’s not an embarrassing situation. The reality is that a significant percentage of people experience some form of abuse. The more we discuss and acknowledge this issue, the more victims will become survivors.
Jacobsen: From your personal recovery to your business model—why focus on empowering women, veterans, and military spouses as your key demographics?
Foster: I was a single mom for five years. In many military families, especially among spouses, women often follow their partner’s career paths rather than their own. I’ve been a military spouse for 14 years—my husband has served that long, and we’ve been married for 13. Upon entering the community, I noticed that many spouses lacked financial independence. It wasn’t necessarily financial abuse, but they didn’t have, as I say, any “skin in the game.” If they ever wanted or needed to leave, they couldn’t afford to.
I told my husband I wanted to help create opportunities—not only for those who might need to leave but also for military spouses and families who struggle financially. Military families often face financial challenges, so I wanted to offer a way for them to earn income or put food on the table. Military spouses have one of the highest unemployment rates due to their frequent relocations. Many pursue degrees and build skills, but when they relocate, they lose job opportunities because their careers can’t move with them. That’s a significant problem.
Veterans also face unique challenges. Many live with PTSD, and as a domestic violence survivor, I experience PTSD as well. For that reason, working in a remote environment can feel safer and more comfortable—whether you’re male or female.
Women tend to gravitate toward our company. It’s not that I wouldn’t hire men—we have one male employee who’s fantastic—but I think people often connect best with those who’ve had similar experiences. That’s true for counselling, too. We’re a sales and operations company, and many women feel comfortable in sales roles, whereas men often prefer the operations side.
We’ve had many women join our team, and we provide a safe, supportive environment free from the triggers often found in other workplaces. It may sound funny, but sometimes our team does cold-call people, and we respect boundaries. If someone doesn’t feel comfortable with a particular client or task, they’re not forced to continue. If someone’s having a bad day or dealing with a difficult situation at home, we understand—because all of us have been there.
Mental health is essential to us, and ensuring the safety of all our employees is a top priority. We’ve created a distinctly unique environment compared to places I’ve worked in before. For example, yelling is a significant trigger for me, so we make sure communication is calm and respectful. We talk about topics carefully and avoid those that might cause distress—some of which I’ve discussed here with you. We maintain an open environment where everyone feels safe to come to us if they need something. We’re always there for them.
Jacobsen: You mentioned being alone. Is isolation among survivors—before they move from identifying as victims to thrivers—an extended period? Is that isolation necessary, or can people find community and recover without it?
Foster: When I left, I went back to my parents’ house. You’re never the same after something like that. I went through much therapy, which I think is essential. It actually took me a year and a half to start treatment after I left, and it’s the best decision I’ve made. I’m still in therapy today because triggers still come up—not daily like before, but occasionally—and I’ve learned how to manage them.
I was probably somewhat isolated, especially with my son. I became very protective of him and didn’t want to leave him with anyone. That isolation initially felt like safety, but it was actually part of the healing process.
Jacobsen: What would make a trauma-informed workplace? Some might see that as over-bureaucratic, while others insist every measure should be implemented because trauma is real. What’s a reasonable foundation for trauma-informed practices that actually work, without feeling artificial or excessive?
Foster: It might sound simple, but having a clear handbook that sets and respects boundaries is key. For example, we avoid discussing breaking news, violence, politics, or religion. In a woman-led environment, that helps reduce triggers. If you’re a military spouse and your husband is deployed overseas, you already hear enough bad news. Hearing about suicides, violence, or tragedies at work can be overwhelming.
By removing those topics, we’ve created a foundation for a safe environment. Of course, there are exceptions—if you’re a journalist, for instance, those conversations are part of the job—but most people whom that kind of work would trigger wouldn’t choose that field.
We also have veterans on our team, and for them, breaking news can be a serious trigger. PTSD is real—whether it stems from domestic violence, combat, or long periods away from family. We make sure our conversations are safe and supportive.
Even though we’re a virtual company, we use Microsoft Teams and Slack like everyone else, so it still feels connected. We maintain an open-door policy: if someone is neurodivergent or has specific sensitivities, they can talk to us so we’re aware and can make adjustments. We can’t control the outside world, but inside the workplace, we can. Some might think that’s extreme, but if you’ve lived through trauma, you understand how essential that awareness is.
Foster: If you’ve lived it, you understand. That can be hard for others to grasp. It doesn’t mean you have to change everything—just the way you talk to someone, or the topics you choose to discuss. That’s part of creating a healthy work environment. I’ve built mine as a safe zone for precisely those reasons—for my employees and for myself.
I also think that if people haven’t been through it, they really don’t understand it. It’s difficult to see what someone is feeling because many survivors hide it well. But we’ve had employees who were able to save money and leave unsafe situations because of the financial independence their jobs provided. They didn’t always tell me what they were going through until later, when they said, “Thank you—this job gave me the ability to leave and save myself and my family.” That means more to me than anything. I try to speak openly about being a survivor so others realize there is a way out. It can be a lonely road, but not a hopeless one.
Jacobsen: People can set boundaries in professional contexts or personal relationships—sometimes both. For instance, someone might share a private detail and ask, “Please don’t post this on social media.” If the abuser violates that trust, the victim feels betrayed and blamed, even though they were clear about their boundaries. That’s a simple example most people can understand.
When someone enforces a boundary—say, they cut another person out of their life professionally or personally—and then feels guilty for doing so, what would you tell them? Especially if it’s the first time they’ve ever advocated for themselves?
Foster: That’s a powerful question. It’s tough to leave, and statistically, it takes a survivor an average of seven or eight attempts before they leave for good. So if someone is talking about it, that’s already a huge step. Saying it out loud is one of the most important milestones—it’s when they stop covering up, whether that’s with makeup, clothing, or silence.
I always tell people it’s crucial to talk to someone. Therapy is excellent if you can afford it, but even if not, find someone you can trust—a friend, coworker, or mentor. That person can help you see the situation more clearly. I’ve had conversations where someone describes their relationship, and I’ll say, “You know that’s not normal, right?” And they’re genuinely surprised—they’ve never thought of it that way.
For example, I’ve had women quit their jobs because their spouse didn’t want them to work anymore. That’s one of the most significant warning signs of abuse—financial control. It’s also, frankly, illogical. You’re turning down income your family could use. When someone’s partner stops them from working, isolates them financially, and limits their independence, that’s financial abuse.
But many don’t see it that way. They’ll say, “No, they love me.” And what can you do? As a business owner, or even as a friend, there’s only so much you can do. That’s one of the most complex parts of being a survivor—watching someone go through it, knowing they have to reach the realization themselves. You can give them every resource, every option, but ultimately, it has to come from them. People think they can save someone, but they can’t. Believe me—I was one of those people no one could save until I was ready.
I had neighbours who weren’t even friends tell me, “This isn’t okay.” And still, I couldn’t accept that until one day, it finally clicked. A light went off, and I knew I had to leave. That’s what it took. If you talk to other survivors, they’ll tell you the same thing—you couldn’t have told them anything. They wouldn’t have listened.
That’s one of the most complex parts of being a survivor. You see others—men and women—going through it, and you recognize the patterns. I’m never quiet about it; I always speak up. I listen to both sides, because sometimes people are just having arguments, and you don’t want to overstep. But when you see repetition, control, isolation—you recognize it. As a survivor, you at least speak up so they know they’re not alone.
But you can’t force anyone out unless there’s physical danger that requires intervention. Even then, calling it in can be scary, because not every report is taken seriously. And when that happens, the victim may end up right back in the same environment, which is terrifying.
Jacobsen: Let’s say someone also wants to start an organization—not necessarily for military families or adult women survivors. It could be for children, men, or even elderly survivors, like in cases of institutional abuse, such as those related to Larry Nassar. For someone who wants to become a professional advocate and build an organization for others, what are your biggest tips?
Foster: I started by building a presence on social media—TikTok, specifically—and talked about my experience openly but respectfully. I have three children, and my oldest is from that previous relationship. I wanted to make sure they all knew it was okay to talk about what happened. That openness is how I built my community and connected with others who felt safe enough to work with us.
To be an effective advocate, you must be prepared to share your story and maintain the right mindset. I’m 15 or 16 years into my healing journey now, and I’m comfortable talking about it. It’s my story, and I choose to share it. I don’t name the person—it’s not worth it. I’ve moved on. I have a wonderful husband, I run my own company, and I help other survivors find financial independence—whether that means having extra income or the means to leave.
Not everyone who works for me is a survivor, but some are. Sometimes I don’t even find out until later. I once had someone who’d worked with me for a year before she opened up after seeing one of my stories. She said, “Can we talk sometime?” and then told me what she’d been through. Sometimes it’s just about being heard—and realizing you’re not alone can change everything.
If people want to be advocates for domestic violence survivors, they have to tell their own stories. That’s how others connect—whether it’s a child, a parent, or anyone else. Sharing your experiences of getting through tough times gives others hope. The first couple of years after leaving are hard, but something beautiful comes out of it. It’s a difficult chapter, but not the whole book. You have to make the choices that get you out and make sure you’re okay first.
Jacobsen: Danielle, thank you very much for sharing your story and for your time today.
Foster: Thank you so much. I hope you have a great weekend—and don’t work too hard.
Jacobsen: Well, that’s not much of a guarantee.
Foster: Thank you so much.
Jacobsen: All right. Bye-bye.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/02
Karel Bouley is a trailblazing LGBTQ broadcaster, entertainer, and activist. As half of the first openly gay duo in U.S. drive-time radio, he made history while shaping California law on LGBTQ wrongful death cases. Karel rose to prominence as the #1 talk show host on KFI AM 640 in Los Angeles and KGO AM 810 in San Francisco, later expanding to Free Speech TV and the Karel Cast podcast. His work spans journalism (HuffPost, The Advocate, Billboard), television (CNN, MSNBC), and the music industry. A voting member of NARAS, GALECA, and SAG-AFTRA, Karel now lives and creates in Las Vegas.
In this interview with Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Bouley, they examine Brazil’s revived LGBTQIA+ national plan, arguing that policy matters only when enforced. Latin America’s progress remains uneven; the EU’s 2026–2030 LGBTIQ+ Equality Strategy offers a framework whose success hinges on member-state will. Taiwan Pride’s 150,000 marchers show how visible government support drives safety, tourism, and economic gains. Elsewhere, Kazakhstan’s “propaganda” bill and Turkey’s draft curbs on gender-affirming care typify a global backlash. They underscore normalization through legal standardization, rapid U.S. shifts in opinion on marriage equality, and the need for deadlines.
Interview conducted October 31, 2025, in the afternoon Pacific Time.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: We are here.
Karel Bouley: You’re the longest relationship I’ve had with a man.
Jacobsen: We’re here with Karel Bouley. We are at This Gay Week… I forget which number it is, but we’re probably about two months in or something. So that means we’re Facebook official—or as the Pope’s old relationship staff used to say, “It’s complicated.”
The first topic for today: Brazil has resumed equality dialogue, according to Human Rights Watch. The government convened the Fourth National Conference on the Rights of LGBTQIA+ People in Brasília to draft a new national plan on rights and inclusion. Marks a reset after the Temer–Bolsonaro years with themes from anti-violence to decent work and intersectionality. It’s aimed at turning resolutions into enforceable policy. That’s an important point. A policy can be made, but making it actionable is a much bigger step.
Bouley: That’s the biggest part of this story, actually—that point. Because so many times you’ll read a story about good intentions or policies that are aimed to be good, but then how do you actually implement them and make them better? In Brazil, Brazil has had a very odd relationship with LGBTQ people. They certainly revel in our costume-making.
But legally, it changes from president to president, much like the United States—but not so much outside of Trump. In the United States, once gays and lesbians had rights, the next president really didn’t concern themselves with repealing those rights—up until Trump. So it’s been tumultuous for the people of Brazil, for the gays and lesbians of Brazil.
There is a large gay community in Brazil, and it’s been tumultuous for them. First of all, this is insulting. I always want to preface these stories with how insulting it is to have a group of people sit around and discuss what rights people like me should and should not have. That is demeaning and insulting.
I’ve always said that in my comedy shows or in any show I do—anytime someone sits around and debates what kind of rights I should have, it’s insulting. I should have every right and every protection, as should every gay person in Brazil, that any other human being should have. We could even get into the whole animal rights thing, because now we’re learning to talk to them. And once we learn to talk to them, what are they going to say? Are we going to give them rights once we can communicate with them?
I’m not optimistic about that because we still haven’t got it right for people, let alone animals. But we will be able to talk to whales within two years, thanks to AI—and probably elephants as well. I just can’t wait to hear what they say. It won’t be “happy birthday.” By the way, next Friday is my birthday, so we’re skipping next Friday, just so you know. It’s my birthday. But this is very important. And Latin America—Brazil, Argentina, etc.
South America has never been, outside of Uruguay, progressive when it comes to LGBTQ rights. You think of Rio and you think of Carnival and you think of gay people, but even there, it’s not that progressive. So for Brazil to be taking this on, as Donald Trump’s infection spreads throughout the world—and his infection, of course, is anti-DEI—
For Brazil to be taking this on right now is very important. For them to be focusing on what they can actually do—not just what policies they can set, but how they can implement them and change the lives of Brazil’s LGBTQ community—is the most important part of what they’re talking about. Obviously, they’re just talking about coming into the 21st century.
When it comes to LGBTQ rights—same-sex marriage, healthcare, adoption—all of these various issues face the LGBTQ community around the world, not just in Brazil. We’ll see what comes out on the other side of it. But the fact that they’re doing it—and seriously doing it—is very impressive. And I hope that the Brazilian parliament or governing body makes the right decisions here.
And listens to more than just Donald Trump’s administration—listens to other administrations from around the world about the benefits of protecting the LGBTQ community. Because there are financial benefits for countries such as Brazil to make themselves more welcoming to the LGBTQ community, both in terms of the people who live there and in terms of visitors or people who may want to move there. So it’s very important economically. Diversity matters.
I don’t think governments understand how much of an economic driving force diversity can be for their country. Hopefully, in Brazil, they’ll get on the right track. They seem to be, but we’ll see. They haven’t implemented anything yet, but we’ll see what happens when they do.
Jacobsen: Also from Human Rights Watch, the EU has launched the new LGBTIQ+ strategy. The Commission’s 2026 to 2030 plan has doubled down on anti-discrimination enforcement, tackling hate speech and crimes, as well as so-called “conversion practices,” and it mainstreams equality in foreign policy funding through the NDICI and the CERV. Delivery will hinge on member-state will and stronger enforcement. So this is the big question again—political will.
Bouley: Right. Well, as a body, the EU is going to put forward these recommendations, and then it’s up to the member states to implement them. It really will depend on the member state. I don’t know if Hungary or Bulgaria are members of the EU, but if they are, then there’s going to be a tougher sell than there will be in Switzerland or in Wales—or, well, Great Britain.
So what the EU is going to do is provide a framework. They’re going to say, “Here are the problem areas, and here’s what you should do in these areas to make sure that the LGBTQI community is protected.” Here are the recommendations; here’s what we’re going to implement overall as the EU. But it’s still up to the member states whether or not they want to implement this.
It sets a tone, certainly, and it’s a good tone. However, it does not guarantee that every one of the member states will enact all of those protections that they are recommending. So again, like Brazil, it’s great that the EU is doing this. However, we have to wait to see how the member states react. And my fear is that the states that need this most are just going to ignore it like they’ve ignored everything else—until a governing body actually says, and we talked about this, “If you don’t implement these, then financially you’re going to suffer this repercussion.”
Until that kind of thing happens, it’s always going to be a patchwork of countries that are already predisposed to equality—Canada might want to join the EU at this point—countries that are already predisposed to have LGBTQ equality.
Those countries are obviously going to adopt the new frameworks and double down and do what they need to do. Countries that are on the fence may adopt some of the recommendations and not all. And then there are some countries that are just going to say, “Pick a finger.”
So we will see again how this one plays out. But again, in a time where we had a think tank here in the United States last week—which I think was run by MAGA—it basically was trying to tell the Democrats what they can do to win. And they gave a list of proposals, and one of the proposals was to stop concentrating on LGBTQIA issues, to stop concentrating on trans issues, to stop rallying for trans women in sports.
So it basically said, “Stay away from all the controversial things that the middle of the road or the right wing doesn’t like, and you’ll win.” Well, what this think tank doesn’t realize is that would be asking liberals not to be liberals—because the liberals of every party usually champion those who are underrepresented. Saying, “You might win more elections if you stop championing the underrepresented,” fundamentally changes who the party is.
And so, the same in the EU—the Labour Party or, if you look at the various parties in various countries, you can already tell which parties are going to be more receptive to these new guidelines and which parties are not. It really depends on which governing party ends up taking over which country. We just had the Dutch elect a centrist liberal; he would probably be more inclined to follow these new EU recommendations. And Germany and other countries that are trying to swing to the far right—probably not. So it depends on the governing parties of the member states.
Jacobsen: The trick question for me, from your commentary, is the political strategy—principle or appeasement?
Bouley: I think in politics, it’s always principle on the campaign route, appeasement when elected. So it depends. I don’t think principles last in politics. They’re the first to go. Every party may mean well when they get in—look at the United States and the Democrats. They’ve been pandering to the gays forever, and yet they didn’t codify same-sex marriage into law through Congress. They let the Supreme Court do it, which means it can be overturned.
They haven’t signed a law that says you can’t be fired for being gay in all 50 states. So even though Democrats talk a good talk with the gay community, the Black community, and the Hispanic community, when it comes time to actually deliver in terms of concrete legislation, they’re not always the quickest to do so.
I think most liberal parties around the world would like to think they are pro-minority, but once they get into power, they realize they might have to “X-nay” on the pro-minority A if they want to stay in power. So again, we’ll see. Are there principled politicians? Yes, there are. Are there some who would fight to the death for minorities or the marginalized? Yes, there are. Are those the ones winning elections right now? Not really. So we’ll see.
Jacobsen: The next item I had was the EU Commission’s official strategy page focused on three pillars—protect, empower, and engage. It’s an expansion of what was already mentioned, just given time limitations. I’ll note that as a tie-in to the prior, and we can go to the next one on Taiwan. Is that okay?
Bouley: Well, once again, you mentioned time limitations—that’s what I’m talking about. And that’s what we go back to with Brazil when they say “make it actionable.” A lot of what we report on here is good intentions, which the path to hell is paved with. I’ve heard them my whole life from politicians and all their good intentions for the community.
But how about we get a deadline going? How about we say, “By this date, this will be legal,” and “By this date, these companies must stop doing this”? Every government around the world that wants to be well-intentioned needs to follow suit and say, “These must be enacted by the end of 2026,” or “These must be done by this date.” Otherwise, it’s just blah, blah, blah—something to do while they’re in session.
Jacobsen: Taiwan Pride—according to reports, nearly 150,000 people marched in the rain in Taipei, keeping East Asia’s largest Pride vibrant. President Lai voiced support. Taiwan has had legal marriage equality since 2019. A humanist colleague pointed something out a while ago.
Bouley: Isn’t it odd that countries like Taiwan, where you’d think LGBTQ rights would be the worst, actually end up being some of the best places for gay people?
As this Pride will attest—150,000 people in the rain—it reflects when a country not only supports something like the LGBTQ community, but when it actually shows that support. When the government participates, when the government takes pride in the fact that they are proud, it pays off for that country.
It pays off financially through tourism and through LGBTQ people being more visible, having more businesses, and being out and open. So it pays off. Taiwan’s a great example. You wouldn’t expect that country to be so pro-gay, yet it is. I’ve been told many times I should go live in Taiwan. And also Thailand—Phuket is very pro-gay.
It’s odd that in these Indo-Pacific nations where you would not expect it; it’s often the smaller ones, like Uruguay. It’s always the smaller nations that say, “We’re fine with our gays. We’re going to let them march. We’re going to let them do their thing. We’re going to support them.”
So in Taiwan, the LGBTQ community has a long history. Even though same-sex marriage only became legal in 2019, gay couples have not been frowned upon there for a very long time. I think that’s partially because of their relationship with China and how they see the opposite side of the coin.
In other words, China is communist, oppressive, and all that comes with it. And here they are—this little island out there—saying, “No, we’re going to be different.” I do think, and I don’t know this for a fact, that part of their LGBTQ policy is to put up a finger to China in some way.
Jacobsen: They are outstanding, particularly in the technology arena, so they have a few legitimately distinguishing marks as a country.
Bouley: I don’t mean to make a generalization—oh yes, I do, forget it—the more educated the country and the more educated the people, the better they treat their minorities, including the gay community. Period. End of story. Ignorant nations treat gay people poorly—see: the United States. Smarter, more educated nations—where people are civically and academically educated—tend to treat minorities and LGBTQ people better.
That’s because educated people usually see things for what they are and are able to think critically. In Taiwan, there’s a huge tech sector. It doesn’t mean they’re all PhDs—many are just little automaton drones putting things on circuit boards—but as a whole, Taiwan prides itself on education. As does Japan.
While Japan, as we’ve discussed here, is still waffling on LGBTQ issues, it’s still further ahead than many Asian nations. I’d have to do some research—maybe ChatGPT can help me out—but I tend to believe that the countries with the highest IQs are the ones that are more pro-minority, not just LGBTQ but pro-minority in general. Educated people tend to treat minorities better.
Jacobsen: We’re swinging over to the United Kingdom now. According to Reuters, King Charles unveiled the first national LGBT Armed Forces memorial at the National Memorial Arboretum.
Bouley: And the biggest story is that he went. That’s the biggest part, because a royal really hasn’t gone and participated in a gay event. Queen Elizabeth wasn’t on a float in Pride down the middle of London.
Jacobsen: This has been an apology tour for them.
Bouley: God bless them—you know what, Andrew is now bi, he’s Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, no longer Prince. He’s the Andrew formerly known as Prince. I read Virginia Giuffre’s book—what happened to that woman was horrifying, from when she was a kid onward. Her stepfather fed her to the lions at Mar-a-Lago. A horrible situation. But good for them for finally taking some action. It’s more than we’re doing in America.
I do think King Charles—well, I don’t know. I can’t get a vibe from William. I really can’t tell if he likes gays or not because he’s so uptight about everything. I can’t get a read on Prince William. But at least Charles showed up. And to the gay veterans in particular, because this was a veteran event, for those who served in the British military, it must have meant a lot.
Forget what it looks like to the world—what did this mean to the gay veterans who served? It meant a lot to them, and to their families, especially if they had someone gay who passed. Him showing up meant a lot to those veterans. That alone makes the story worthwhile.
The other part is that here is a seated monarch showing up at a gay event. That’s huge. That is huge. Harry loves the gays, of course—come on.
I do not know about William and Charles. Someone needs to remove the broomstick from his ass. But for him to show up there, that was a big deal. And let us remember, this was to honor veterans who had served even before it was legal for them to serve, when they had to serve in silence. That is a big deal, acknowledging that they made a mistake by making them serve in silence.
Which is more than we have done in our country, as the show Boots will attest. Not only have we never apologized to the soldiers who served in silence, but now we are kicking trans people out of the military. So at least in the United States, we are going backwards, while in Britain, they seem to be going forward when it comes to their gay, lesbian, and trans veterans.
Jacobsen: A small footnote—not directly on our mandate—but the Canadian Armed Forces issued an apology for those who experienced discrimination. So there is a moderate move in some Western militaries, which is positive.
Bouley: Three items. The greatest warriors in the world were gay—Sparta. Did you see 300? Hello.
Jacobsen: Kazakhstan—lawmakers gave preliminary approval to ban so-called “LGBT propaganda” online and in media. Repeat offenses can mean up to ten days in jail.
Bouley: It will be much worse than that, trust me. I have been told by many friends, “Oh no, you would love Afghanistan or Kazakhstan; you would be fine there.” I think it is pretty universal in the gay community—stay away from the “-stans.” They throw people off roofs there. They are moving backward in both women’s rights and gay rights.
Jacobsen: Although, according to Elton John, you should be okay with the Eminem Stans.
Bouley: I always thought Eminem dabbled myself, but that is another story. He is friends with Elton John, after all. It does not surprise me, but let us be clear—what they call LGBTQ “propaganda” means anything pro-LGBTQ: anything that talks of equality or diversity. That is what they are calling propaganda. They are mimicking the laws in Russia. Kazakhstan and Russia have always had a love-hate relationship—either they are friends or one is invading the other. But they are copying Russia’s laws. Russia already bans what they call LGBTQ propaganda, which actually means any literature or content that is pro-LGBTQ. So Kazakhstan does not want anything pro-gay in the public sphere. If you put it out there, they threaten ten days in jail. I am telling you—you might get shot.
Jacobsen: South Korea’s census will now include same-sex couples, according to Human Rights Watch, for the 2025 census. Same-sex partners will be able to register as “spouses” or “cohabiting partners.”
Bouley: I am happy about that. I am told—on this rainbow tour of his, it is so Evita—that he was not happy with them acknowledging same-sex couples on their census. That is secondhand information, but it sounds like something he would say.
Anytime an Asian nation—or I suppose Korea qualifies—makes even a small advance, it is a good thing. Because what we are talking about here is normalization. In all these countries, what matters is normalizing LGBTQ people. If a non-gay person looks at the census form and sees a space for gay people, it normalizes it. It removes some of the stigma. So it is not just important for getting a headcount; it is a step toward visibility and acceptance.
Knowing how many people are LGBTQ or in same-sex couples is important because it helps normalize those couples to a broader audience. That is really the power of what they are doing. A simple recognition on the census will help normalize same-sex couples in their country.
Jacobsen: I would add one footnote to that. A precondition, though not necessarily in every case, would be the standardization of norms. If you have that as a category, as you are saying, then you get normalization. I think it is similar to legal and policy standardization with international norms—you get normalization afterward. But I think that process can take a very long time.
Bouley: It depends. Here in America, attitudes on same-sex marriage shifted within five years. It went from about 60 percent against to 60 percent for—within five years. That was astounding, even to me. Before it became legal, people were terrified. But once it became legal in several states and people saw that the world was not ending, that their hetero marriages were fine, they realized, “What do you know? It did not really do much—no skin off my nose.” So when asked about it later, they said, “I do not care; it is fine.” Legalization changed perception. Once it started in several states, national attitudes shifted from 60 percent against to 60 percent for, and that happened within five years.
So social change can come quickly on some issues, though others can take decades, depending on the culture. In my lifetime, it is never going to be okay to be gay in the “-stans.” Even if they legalized it tomorrow, there would still be pockets of hostility. Look at Costa Rica. I have been looking into it as a possible move. In San José, LGBTQ people are recognized; same-sex marriage is legal. Yet every gay traveler’s guide warns that it is still a primarily Catholic country. If you go into the more rural areas, you are likely to experience discrimination or violence, even though that is prohibited by law.
So it does not matter what the law says. Once you get into rural areas, you find the cultural resistance. I do not know what a redneck Costa Rican looks like—maybe not Bubba, maybe “Bubbita”—but when you find them, you will not be welcomed. Even though it is illegal to discriminate, they might anyway. So it takes a long time in some cultures.
Ireland is the exact opposite. When Ireland decides something—done. They decided on same-sex marriage a decade ago and never looked back, never tried to repeal it. They legalized abortion—done. It is law, they fund it, they moved on. They are not going backward. Some cultures are like that: boom, decision made, next issue. Others may have progressive laws, but the prevailing attitudes lag behind.
Jacobsen: Turkey, according to Human Rights Watch, a leaked draft of the Eleventh Judicial Package dated October 29 would criminalize behaviors “contrary to biological sex and general morality,” restrict gender-affirming care with a minimum age of 25 and an infertility requirement, and penalize providers and even symbolic same-sex ceremonies with prison terms. Any thoughts?
Bouley: Again, we have some countries like Brazil trying to move forward and others trying to move backward. You should know this mirrors what Donald Trump wants to do here. It was announced yesterday that he wants to cut off all funding for any gender-affirming care for anyone under 18—period.
No insurance company can pay for it—whether it is private or not, it does not matter. No insurance company, no government agency, nothing can cover gender-affirming care for people under the age of 18. He is trying that here. That is a small piece of what you just said, a small piece of that legislation.
We are at a time in the world where one of the largest and most influential nations—the United States—is going backward. Other nations are seeing this as their chance to go backward as well. Meanwhile, others like the EU—though not technically a nation—along with Brazil and Taiwan, are trying to move forward.
In my lifetime, it has always been this tug-of-war—pull one way, pull the other—between equality on one side and discrimination on the other. The forces are very strong now, pulling in opposite directions. That leaves a lot of people stuck in the middle. People will find gender-affirming care. If it is illegal where they live, they will go somewhere else. These countries are only hurting their own people.
Jacobsen: Any final thoughts for today?
Bouley: My final thought—is that we are at an interesting time for any minority in the world: women, immigrants, gays. We have one group of countries trying to progress, and another group trying to regress. The beauty of that tension is that it may eventually even out in the middle.
I can only hope that once a regime change happens here—and it will—as Pete Buttigieg says (and by the way, I know it is early in the game, but he polls very well for running for president, and he is gay), a lot of people are putting that to the side. That really speaks to how advanced a country is.
We talked about IQ. The EU has been around since, quite frankly, dirt—since Rome, or at least after the fall of Rome. They have had more time to figure these things out. Some countries are newer, or their regimes and governmental structures are new—50 years, 80 years, even 100 years—which is young on the scale of humanity. Those are the ones still struggling with it. America is only 249 years old, and we are still having trouble with it.
If you look at Britain, the government of Great Britain was first founded, 1707. That is a while ago, but they also had a monarchy. And let us remember—the word “queen” is involved in that. Monarchs were often tolerant of gay people because, well, we entertained them or cooked for them.
As the weeks progress and you and I talk more, we are going to see more polarizing stories—more very negative ones like Kazakhstan, and more positive ones like Brazil or Taiwan. The middle ground is becoming scarce; it is either very negative or very positive.
So we will see.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Karel.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/02
Michelle Stewart is a cult survivor, author, and advocate whose memoir, “Judas Girl: My Father, Four Cults & How I Escaped Them All,” chronicles her childhood entry into, and adult exit from, multiple high-control religious groups. Raised in an environment that included a Hutterite community and other Anabaptist and Orthodox enclaves, she examines how spiritual authority, conformity, and secrecy enable abuse: Stewart’s work centers survivor safety, legal accountability, and ethical pastoral confidentiality. From Colorado, she speaks and writes about distinguishing mainstream faith from cultic enclaves, reforming confession practices, and fostering healing narratives that emphasize agency, nonlinearity, and evidence-based support for survivors.
In this interview with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Stewart differentiates organized religion from cults by centering survivor experience, highlighting speech suppression, enforced conformity, and authoritarian leadership. She recounts entering high-control groups as a child, including a Hutterite community, and leaving four groups by her twenties. Stewart critiques how confession and obedience to spiritual fathers can be weaponized, especially in Eastern Orthodox and Anabaptist enclaves, shielding crimes and silencing victims. She argues for universal mandatory reporting, accountability, and practical reforms prioritizing child safety and legal responsibility. As a survivor-advocate, she promotes trauma-informed interviewing and healing narratives emphasizing agency, nonlinearity, and systemic change over sensational detail.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with Judas girl herself, Michelle Stewart. You are a cult survivor turned author and advocate. There are a few kinds of people: some are still in the cult, some have left and never talk about it again, and some, like you, write, speak, and advocate about this troubling aspect of human psychology and group dynamics. Let’s start with the obvious question: what separates a cult from a formal religion for you?
Michelle Stewart: I’ve been asked that many times, and you’ll hear different definitions from different people. There are shared traits, but no single academic litmus test—no exact checklist that determines whether something is a cult. My understanding has evolved. While there are standard features, I believe it’s the experiences of survivors that reveal whether something truly functions as a cult. When I talk with people from various groups—fringe offshoots of mainstream traditions, Amish or other Anabaptist communities, the Unification Church (often called the “Moonies”), or the Twelve Tribes—specific themes repeat. One is the inability to speak out freely. People may hold personal differences in belief or culture, but challenging authority often leads to ostracism. You can’t both belong and speak out. This shows up primarily in cases of abuse—people risk losing community, family ties, and support systems. Another consistent feature is the demand for conformity. In most mainstream congregations—Episcopal, Baptist, or Jewish synagogues—you see substantial diversity in lifestyle, politics, and personal views. In high-control groups, there’s far greater oversight of daily life. For example, some Orthodox Jewish communities observe detailed dietary laws (halakha) but also include health exemptions; in certain separatist Christian groups, such as some Anabaptist or Old Order communities, dress codes can be strict and engagement with outside politics limited or guided by leaders. In some groups, political or social views are tightly scripted. Within broad traditions you can find both healthy, pluralistic congregations and insular enclaves that become high-control. For instance, Eastern Orthodox Christianity as a whole is a mainstream religion. Yet, particular enclaves or breakaway groups can operate in cult-like ways. That distinction matters. People often respond, “You can’t call the Orthodox Church or the Amish a cult.” Labels applied to an entire faith are rarely accurate. But a person can have a cult-like experience within a subset of almost any tradition. You can live under a cult mentality while still being nominally part of a larger, mainstream religion.
Jacobsen: How does your experience fit into that? How did you fall into it?
Stewart: How did I fall into cults? I was brought in as a child. I was seven when my parents joined what I describe in my book Judas Girl: My Father, Four Cults & How I Escaped Them All as the first of four cults. For me, it began as a childhood experience that I later had to leave as an adult. When I entered, I had no understanding of what a cult was or even the vocabulary to describe it. I only knew that suddenly, I was in a highly controlled environment. The first group was a Hutterite community.
As I mentioned earlier, you can have an organized religion with cult-like enclaves within it. Moving from a mainstream evangelical background into a setting where the group controlled all finances, clothing, housing, work, and spending meant having almost no personal autonomy. I knew it was different, but I didn’t understand what those differences meant until years later. It wasn’t until my twenties—after four separate groups—that I escaped and began to reflect on and understand those experiences.
Jacobsen: What were the through lines for those four groups?
Stewart: Just to make sure I understand correctly—the commonalities between the four? Yes. There were several universal through lines. They connect back to how I define a cult. The first was that in all of these groups, church leadership was revered far above the average member and held unquestioned authority. There’s irony in the fact that many of them referred to their leaders as “servants,” when in practice, it was the opposite.
Whether it was an Orthodox priest or a bishop in an Anabaptist sect—the kind I spent years in—the leader’s opinions were treated as sacred and beyond challenge. As a lay member, especially as a woman, my opinion was not considered equal. I was taught to accept that my wisdom was inferior. Leadership was seen as divinely superior.
With that came varying degrees of control. In some groups, the leader’s authority was absolute—obey or be expelled. In others, defiance led to psychological punishment: being ignored, condemned to hell, or subtly ostracized. It wasn’t always physical rejection but often psychological manipulation. That dynamic was consistent across every group.
Another constant was the use of God and salvation to control people. There was a mentality—unstated but deeply ingrained—that the ends justified the means. If you had to shun, manipulate, or even lie to someone to preserve their “salvation,” it was seen as justified. Abuse—whether psychological, emotional, or, for children, even physical—was rationalized in the name of saving souls. The goal was to ensure compliance with the group’s beliefs at any cost, because salvation was considered paramount.
Of course, not all cults are religious, but in my case, they all were. These were faith-based, coercive systems—extreme forms of existing religions. In this case, extreme iterations of Christianity, specifically of the Anabaptist tradition, which emerged during the Reformation and includes Mennonites, Amish, and Hutterites, as well as parallels in specific Orthodox contexts. They were radical offshoots of otherwise recognized faiths.
There’s one more through line worth mentioning: the suppression of individuality. In every group, personal expression was discouraged. In some, conformity was enforced through clothing. In others, like the Orthodox sect I was part of, individuality was discouraged in thought, behavior, and aesthetics. Even how you decorated your home, prayed, or spoke had to conform. There was a constant demand for uniformity, presented as a condition for salvation.
Jacobsen: There are two points I want to touch on. The book is not anti-faith; it’s anti-abuse. The other is your father’s declining mental health, with his reported revelations. Can you expand on the distinction made in the former and the development—or deterioration—of the latter?
Stewart: That’s an essential aspect for me. Judas Girl speaks candidly about religion and religious control. As we discussed, there’s a difference between a cult and an organized religion, and beyond that, between people of faith and those with no organized religion at all. Judas Girl is meant to be accessible. If you’re not a person of faith, you won’t feel pressured to embrace someone else’s God. You can read it from a secular perspective. But if you are a person of faith, it’s written to help you understand how elements of faith can be both used and abused. In a sense, it’s almost written to protect faith.
There’s often backlash from people with a cultic mindset who claim that speaking out against a church is the same as speaking out against God. To me, speaking out against religious abuse is actually faith-affirming—just as speaking out against child abuse is affirming of parenthood and family. You can condemn abuse without condemning the larger institution. Abuse isn’t inherent to religion, but acknowledging and addressing it is essential for any faith to survive. I try to make that distinction clear throughout the book. It’s not a confrontation with God; it’s a confrontation with people who misuse God.
As for my father’s mental illness, it developed gradually. In his case, I believe his illness was the on-ramp to these extremist groups. He began showing schizoid and borderline personality traits. He was later diagnosed with aspects of both, although he avoided psychiatric treatment whenever possible. People with that type of mental framework tend to see things in extremes—very black and white—and that meshed perfectly with the rigid, binary worldview of cults.
There was also a part of him that wanted what he saw as a simpler life, which is ironic because being in a cult is anything but easy. They may offer a sense of unity and care, but the cost is enormous—far greater than simply living independently. His black-and-white mindset absorbed cult ideology like a sponge. As he developed more religious delusions—believing himself, and later others, to be prophets—he became increasingly susceptible to manipulation by cult leaders claiming divine authority.
Those two factors—mental illness and cult influence—worked in parallel. Each reinforced the other. Both eroded his ability to reason or listen to outside perspectives. When we entered a new group, family members who spoke against it became “the enemy.” Similarly, people with untreated mental illness often reject voices of reason that might anchor them. As he cut those ties, he spiraled further, descending into a kind of shared psychosis between his own mind and the cult ideology.
Jacobsen: How did you feel about that during that time? And how do you think about it now, knowing it doesn’t work?
Stewart: At the time, my understanding changed across my cult experiences. At first, I was young, and my father told me he believed he had a physical illness. I also didn’t have the education to understand mental illness. Another common thread in all these cults was a systematic denial of mental illness. They didn’t acknowledge it as real, or if they did, they framed it as a deliberate choice or a sin. That encouraged him and left me without tools or vocabulary. Someone growing up in secular society might encounter diagnoses and develop understanding earlier than I did. I first believed him when he said he was physically ill. As he developed spiritual delusions, I took them at face value. I was a child. It was terrifying, but I believed completely. When we entered an off-grid Anabaptist commune, by the fifth or sixth year the group started pushing back on him. I was a member of that church, which meant my obedience was to them over my parents. It was a conflict, but I had to obey the church. They confronted my dad. They wouldn’t call it mental illness; they called it lying and sin.
“We have deemed you are not a prophet. We have deemed you are not unwell.” That was even scarier, and it’s where part of the Judas Girl concept comes from. I had two authorities—a father and a church—each telling me to reject the other or go to hell and be abandoned. Both ended up dumping me. As that evolved and I gained my own understanding, it created a schism that made me question both my father’s mental well-being and these cult mentalities. It took a long time to put together. I knew the questions were growing, and they were confusing and terrifying at the time. As an adult, with education and academic learning about mental illness—and curiosity about my own experience—I look back and see a heartbreaking story of a father who was abusive, manipulative, and controlling, but also very ill and in need of help, exploited by cults and extreme religion. That is one foundation for why I wrote the book: to bring these thought processes and psychology to light so people can better understand cults around them and, possibly, their own experiences.
Jacobsen: Let’s take a round-table view. You’ve looked at Eastern Orthodox hierarchy as a kind of petri dish where allegations can climb multiple layers. How does that model differ from, for example, the Catholic Church’s more centralized, pyramidal hierarchy and the autocephalous—though still hierarchical—structure of Orthodoxy?
Stewart: I don’t have personal experience in the Catholic Church, so when I speak about it, I’m referring to conversations with people who do. We’ve compared stories. What stood out to me in the Eastern Orthodox Church—stronger than what my Catholic friends described—was the control held by the spiritual father, the confessor. In my experience, that person had enormous power over how one perceived salvation. They often used that influence to control people who wanted to report abuse.
The article we discussed was about abuse. I, along with others who I won’t name, experienced situations where we wanted to say, “I was abused, and I’m struggling.” The response was that seeking accountability outside confession wasn’t our role. It was said to be between the abuser and their spiritual father. We were told to confess our resentment or “unforgiving heart,” but never to speak publicly.
I saw that mindset climb the hierarchy. There’s a current case involving Father Matthew Williams—my brother-in-law—where layers of cover-up are alleged. There’s evidence that misconduct occurred long before the cases now on trial. When I say “petri dish,” I mean that the Church sees itself as responsible for the sins of its members—but only internally, to the exclusion of external authorities. In practice, this means that even criminal acts are treated as matters for spiritual correction rather than legal accountability.
While the Catholic Church has had cover-ups too, what sets parts of Orthodoxy apart, based on my experience and conversations, is the intense secrecy. The idea that “it’s not the business of the secular world to know the sins of the Church” allows abuse to remain hidden. I know people who were told explicitly that if they reported abuse, they would be denied communion. Considering that communion is tied to salvation, withholding it is devastating. That level of spiritual coercion goes beyond what I’ve heard in Catholic contexts. I have seen similar tactics in cultic environments. Still, within Orthodoxy, it’s distinct in how authority and obedience are used to silence victims.
Jacobsen: What are the ethical lines between pastoral confidentiality and shielding a crime?
Stewart: It’s interesting. I mentioned earlier that I have a social media account where people discuss these topics, and this week’s discussion was about the protections of confession—particularly when child abuse is confessed. Where are the ethical lines in that situation? I don’t have an obvious answer. Still, I believe the well-being of children and victims of sexual assault should always take priority.
Suppose a clergy member—or anyone providing pastoral care—is aware of ongoing abuse. In that case, I believe they have an ethical duty to protect the person being harmed. I phrased that deliberately: there’s a narrow space in pastoral care, especially under the sacrament of confession, where someone might seek forgiveness for past misdeeds that are no longer ongoing. In those cases, the clergy member might not be a mandatory reporter, though even that should be carefully examined. Those instances are rare, but they exist.
What troubles me most is why pastoral care—whether in Orthodox, Catholic, Amish, or Methodist settings—so often excludes accountability. Why is legal responsibility not part of the moral direction given by those in authority? It’s well known that, in many cases, it isn’t. Returning to our earlier discussion about the “petri dish” of confession, if clergy hold such profound authority in a person’s life, why isn’t that authority used to encourage, or even require, legal accountability?
Why are these two realms—spiritual care and justice—so disconnected? We’ve created a system where, in some Orthodox confessions and even specific Catholic contexts depending on jurisdiction, someone can confess to actively abusing a person and remain confident that no one will report it. They can continue serving as clergy, or in any position of authority, with complete impunity. That raises the deeper question: why are we still preserving this expectation of absolute privacy for abusers, instead of fostering a norm that confession should lead to accountability and protection for victims?
Jacobsen: This has been a recurring theme across some of my conversations—with counselors, psychologists, psychotherapists, and social workers—people who deal directly with the individual psyche and moral responsibility every day.
Through some of my conversations with counseling psychologists, psychiatrists, psychotherapists, and social workers—people who deal with individuals one-on-one in intimate settings—I’ve noticed that these professions are bound by a clear duty to report abuse. Clergy, on the other hand, are also a kind of professional class. They’re educated, often intelligent, and serve hierarchical community roles.
Yet they’re not bound as strictly by mandatory reporting laws. There was a bill introduced in California last year to change that, but it didn’t pass. These are recurring concerns. So, what justifies lowering the universal standard of duty to report within religious contexts—for priests, bishops, or other clergy?
Why is that the case, and why shouldn’t it be? Why does religion get that exemption?
Stewart: My personal view is nuanced, but I believe there should be a consistent standard across professions. The argument for giving clergy a lower reporting standard doesn’t hold up when compared to the reasoning used for psychiatric or social work confidentiality.
When I’ve spoken with people who support the priest-penitent privilege, they often cite the sacramental nature of confession. The laws vary by state, and some jurisdictions differentiate between a casual conversation with a pastor and a formal sacramental confession. That distinction, mainly relevant to Catholic and Orthodox churches, effectively creates a privileged carve-out. A conversation with a minister in a Protestant setting might not receive the same protection, which raises fairness concerns on its own.
The justification I hear most often—and I can understand it emotionally, even if I disagree—is that this protection encourages abusers to seek repentance. The logic goes: if someone knows their confession could lead to legal consequences, they may never come forward, and the abuse will continue unchecked. By maintaining confidentiality, the clergy can supposedly help the person change course.
I understand that rationale but reject it. Mental health professionals also want people to come forward, to seek help for harmful impulses or past actions. But their systems recognize that protecting victims must take precedence over preserving an abuser’s privacy. The same principle should apply to clergy.
When confidentiality shields active abuse, it becomes complicity. There are cases where priests have confessed to abusing their own children, and the information was never reported. The result was continued reoffending. That, to me, is the moral failure of this privileged exemption. The idea that pastoral confidentiality should outweigh the safety of victims—especially in cases of ongoing abuse—is indefensible.
We know that the data show recidivism rates are high. We know from data that someone confessing to many of these crimes is highly likely to reoffend, even if the incident they’re confessing to is in the past. For that same reason, while I have empathy and sympathy for people in the Catholic or Orthodox churches who want to protect that sanctity—and that the seal of confession has long been recognized as inviolable—I think the victim’s rights truly have to come first, for the same reasons the psychological community reached that conclusion.
Jacobsen: What else? What would signal actual reform?
Stewart: I would say a public embrace of accountability. I would love—well, I mean, we never want a crime to have occurred—but I would love to see a scenario where a priest stepped up and reported abuse. I would like to see the church stand behind him. For example, years ago, I don’t know if you’re familiar with the Christ of the Hills Monastery in Blanco, Texas. I happened to be; my then-spouse was being used by the defense in a child sexual abuse case. The conversation came up that they might try to subpoena the alleged perpetrator’s spiritual fathers to testify as to whether he had confessed to sexual abuse. The response was universal: “We will go to jail before we break the seal of confession.” And again, I understand that faith is deep and complicated, and I hurt for anyone who feels they must make that decision. However, reform to me would have been the opposite: the church saying, “We have potential child victims—ongoing child victims. We are accountable to the state first. We hold our clergy to higher standards than the general public, not lower.” That kind of accountability would signal real reform.
It would also help if people were made very clear—even in confession or religious counseling—that taking accountability for your actions outside of skipping communion for a few months is part of repentance. It’s part of the path to healing, not a way to avoid facing consequences. Changing that narrative entirely would give the process absolute integrity. Frankly, it would prevent more abuse than sheltering people in confession ever could. Right now, many think, “All I have to do is confess.” We know clergy members have confessed to child sexual abuse and then continued to serve liturgy afterward. If they knew that confession would not remain purely private, that would put real weight behind accountability and integrity within the church. It could be a significant turning point in shifting the culture around abuse.
Jacobsen: What about those without significant agency—children who grow up under those conditions? What are the additional risks and contexts for them in terms of community safety? For instance, we know from Orthodox records that most sexual assault cases involve adult women. In contrast, most pedophilic cases involve young boys. But children have an additional lack of agency when they’re cognitively undeveloped and under coercive control—not just part of a community but trapped within it. From your experience in law, is there additional context for that, or does the law treat both roughly the same, perhaps just applying child abuse statutes?
Stewart: I’ll answer this as best I can, and you can tell me if it needs reframing. As far as victims of abuse, what I’ve seen and experienced—and I mentioned this earlier—is the silencing of those victims. That needs to be completely reversed. I’ve seen policies in more mainstream churches where a victim of abuse knows they’ll receive immediate support if they report, rather than the church systematically silencing them or treating it as a matter for confession or for clergy to decide. I’ve seen this repeatedly across multiple churches with a cult-like mentality, where victims are told that forgiveness is required. That includes me. When you struggle psychologically, mentally, or emotionally as a victim of abuse, that struggle is layered on as another sin—your supposed inability to forgive or heal. It becomes another mechanism of control. I’ve also heard of more than one case where priests asked victims to recount details of their abuse repeatedly in confession.
I bring that up because part of the change I want to see is not only ensuring safety and the right to come forward, but also reforming how confession itself is taught and understood—how to identify abuse and manipulation even within the sacrament. That means recognizing when a priest abuses that role, whether for gratification or power. Confession should never be a place of manipulation. It should be spiritual guidance, not the endpoint for psychological, medical, or legal support. It’s a place for spiritual reflection, not for silencing or retraumatization.
Jacobsen: Your focus is on systems critique within the personal narrative. Do you ever focus on individual perpetrators who hold significant authority? Is it appropriate to do so, or is it generally better to focus on systems to achieve accountability?
Stewart: I think you need both. When I wrote my book, it came very much from a personal perspective. Specific individuals absolutely need to be called out. Abusers should be named, and every victim deserves full support and access to resources. Hence, they know it wasn’t their fault and that help exists. Focusing on specific perpetrators definitely has its place. In personal life, that’s often how things unfold—you respond to harm by identifying those responsible. Each scenario deserves attention and accountability.
That said, I lean toward systemic analysis because there’s always a percentage of any population that will abuse—whether through rape, child molestation, or psychological harm. What distinguishes abuse within specific religious systems is that those systems build scaffolding that allows abuse to thrive. It’s not limited to cults or extremist sects; we’ve seen it in mainstream religious institutions as well.
My focus happens to be on those environments where abuse in a more mainstream religious setting might be reported and stopped much more quickly. In contrast, some institutions create conditions where abuse thrives. I know you focus a lot on the Orthodox Church. Still, I’ve also done much work with Amish and Amish offshoots, which have very similar approaches. What we see in those cases are abusers who remain active for years, often with multiple victims, all covered for by the system.
Now, of course, the individual abuser is fully responsible for their behavior. But could they have been stopped if they lived within a structure that required accountability—mandatory reporting, sex offender registries, restrictions from being near children—instead of simply confessing, facing minimal church discipline, and then being placed back into authority over the same vulnerable groups? That, to me, is the key difference.
I live in Colorado. We have wildfires here. If a fire breaks out in a swamp, it won’t spread far. It’s still a fire and still dangerous, but in a wet area, it’s contained. Now imagine a drought area, like much of California. A single spark can become a massive blaze. The person who lit that spark is responsible, but the conditions make the destruction far greater. That’s how I see institutional abuse. Each case matters, but these systems create drought-like conditions—structures that let a small flame turn into a wildfire destroying countless lives. That’s where my focus lies.
Jacobsen: What are the consistencies in how cults and religions handle abuse cases? If someone were abused within the Moonies or within Orthodoxy, both institutions would respond in specific ways. What aspects would be essentially identical?
Non-extreme religions or cults too. When I interviewed David Pooler, he noted that regardless of Christian denomination, the immediate institutional response to clergy abuse is usually self-protection—and the community participates in that defensiveness. So, in that sense, cults and religions behave similarly.
Stewart: That’s a good observation. Reflecting on Pooler’s comment, I’d agree that there’s a general human tendency across institutions to be defensive. You can even see it in nonreligious contexts like the Boy Scouts. This organization systemically hid abuse to protect itself.
Where extreme religions and mainstream ones could diverge is in their foundation for accountability. Some mainstream or progressive religious institutions have taken steps to ensure victims or perpetrators are referred to legal and psychological support systems. But yes, many spiritual and organizational structures share that same reflex: to defend the institution, preserve public image, and protect financial interests. Religious organizations handle millions or even billions of dollars, and that economic dimension often reinforces secrecy.
Still, I’ve also seen positive exceptions. Some churches have acknowledged abuse publicly, reported it to authorities, and immediately defrocked or removed offending clergy. So, I wouldn’t say the behavior is universal across all religions. There’s a clear dividing line between how extreme or insular groups respond versus how more progressive, accountable, or legally compliant ones do.
Jacobsen: How can you tell a story while maintaining the objective fact that people have been victimized—whether or not they identify as victims, or adopt a survivor mindset, or eventually move toward one? That’s mainly up to them. So when it comes to interview practices and media work involving people who’ve been victimized—especially in cult contexts—how should we avoid falling into what’s often called “trauma porn”? How do we prevent the stigmatization or sensationalizing of trauma while still telling stories factually and empathetically, incorporating that first-person perspective? What are your recommendations?
Stewart: I love that question. And I’ve had to confront it while writing my own story—which, with permission, includes parts of others’ stories too. It’s a tricky space, and I don’t think there’s an obvious line. It’s one reason you’ve heard me in this conversation veering toward systemic critique—focusing on institutional change and mindset shifts—rather than delving too deeply into explicit personal accounts. However, I do explore those in my book.
When interviewing survivors, I approach it from the perspective of helping them share their experience in a way that fosters healing. Some interviewees won’t be fully healed, and that’s okay. But if they’re willing to talk, they’re usually at least beginning to process the experience and acknowledge that something wrong occurred. That’s the foundation.
I would strongly advise against pressing someone who hasn’t yet recognized their own abuse or manipulation into doing so on record. I’ve seen interviewers try to coax that realization out mid-conversation, and it rarely leads to genuine insight—it risks retraumatization instead. The focus should remain on healing and change.
For example, I can describe being in a car accident—my leg shattered, immense pain—but the emphasis should be on how I recovered: the physical therapy, the emotional reckoning, and how I reached a point where I could walk or even run again. That story becomes one of endurance and transformation. Likewise, if someone is speaking about abuse, the focus should be on why we’re telling the story: healing, accountability, prevention, or awareness.
You can convey the depth of trauma without detailing the blood and gore. Those visceral details can eclipse the point, which is understanding the impact and how change occurs. Include only enough to give context for the gravity of the experience, not to exploit it.
Ultimately, keep intent front and center. If the intent is to shock or horrify, that’s the wrong motive. If the intent is to illuminate, empower, and advocate for healing or accountability, then the story serves a purpose. And if someone’s goal is just to make audiences gasp, they probably shouldn’t be working in this space at all.
Jacobsen: What would you consider the healthiest self-narrative for survivors of cult or clergy abuse to adopt as they go through the healing process?
Stewart: I like how you framed that earlier—the distinction between victims, those with a victim mentality, those who are healing, and those who are thriving. Speaking from personal experience rather than an academic standpoint, I’d say that while reminders like “it’s not your fault” are essential, the most powerful narrative centers on healing as a journey.
First and foremost, you—and only you—are responsible for your healing. That may sound daunting, but it’s also liberating. Someone may have harmed you, but recognizing that you have not only the responsibility but also the power to heal gives you agency. That mindset moves you forward much more effectively than staying in a place of “I am broken.”
At the same time, it’s essential to understand that healing isn’t linear. You’re accountable to yourself and only to yourself as you uncover, process, and come to terms with what’s happened. There’s no timetable, no external requirement for how quickly or neatly that process unfolds.
There’s no requirement to have forgiven anyone by a specific date or to have recovered from PTSD in a particular timeline. Healing doesn’t obey a schedule. One of the most powerful realizations for me—and for many survivors—is that while abuse feels deeply personal, it actually isn’t. To the abuser, it was never truly about you.
That’s hard to internalize, because for most victims, the violation feels like the most personal event imaginable—especially in cases of sexual or psychological abuse. But when you can decouple yourself from it, when you can recognize that the abuse came from something entirely outside of you—a sickness, a distortion, a system—that’s when real healing starts.
The old saying “it’s not your fault” is true, but it doesn’t go far enough. It’s not only not your fault—it’s not about you. You were simply in the path of someone else’s damage, like a car running over something in the road. That may sound devaluing, but it’s freeing: none of this comes back to your worth.
In my own case, understanding that both the sexual and emotional abuse I endured had very little to do with me—realizing it wasn’t about who I was or what I did to “deserve” harm—was essential. Whether the cause was religious indoctrination, mental illness, moral corruption, or plain cruelty, it originated entirely in them, not in me.
Accepting that truth has been one of the most significant contributors to healing.
Jacobsen: Thank you very much, I appreciate it.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/01
Christopher Louis is a Los Angeles–based international dating and relationship coach and the founder of Dating Intelligence. As host of the Dating Intelligence Podcast, Louis draws on intuition and lived experience to guide clients toward authentic selves and meaningful romantic connections.
In this exchange with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Louis surveys enduring red flags—self-absorption, ex talk, and rude manners—and newer ones: chronic phone use and love-bombing. He links patterns to anxious and fearful attachment styles. Among professional “alpha” clients, over-filtering and impatience can eclipse good matches; less secure daters “audition” rather than observe—social media fuels labels, subtweeting, and vaguebooking, eroding privacy-as-dignity. Post-MeToo, respecting boundaries has evolved from chivalry to consent. Louis’s season premiere with Brande Roderick explores LAT as a workable model. His remedy: presence, empathy, and perspective.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: All right. Once again, we’re here with the charismatic Christopher Louis. We’re going to be talking about red flags. This is a big topic, but it’s always good as a refresher course because we all forget what red flags, green flags, yellow flags, and so on are. You work with active clientele, and people pay you for your advice and feedback.
Louis: That is correct.
Jacobsen: What comes up for you? And your first episode is out now, right?
Louis: That’s correct. Thank you. My first episode of Dating Intelligence for the new season premiered last Tuesday. It features Playboy Playmate and Baywatch star Brande Roderick. She is the premier guest co-host for this new season of Dating Intelligence. It went really well, and we discussed LAT (Living Apart Together). She and her partner actually live apart together—he lives right behind her. They live in separate houses, backyard to backyard.
Jacobsen: That could work.
Louis: It does for them. They’ve been together for years, and it works quite well.
Jacobsen: When you see red flags in your business and when people come to you, how do you identify one? How do people present red flags to you, and how do you identify red flags about them or about the people they’re discussing—things they may not be acknowledging when they describe their situation to you?
Louis: Hi, Scott, thanks for having me. With the people I coach, most of my clients who have red flags tend to fall into either the anxious attachment style or the fearful attachment style. What happens with that—starting with women first, and then I’ll talk about men—is that women often tend to be quick to talk about marriage and children. They’re usually in a hurry. Many feel like there isn’t enough time, especially women in their mid to late thirties, whose biological clocks are ticking. They want to push the issue of marriage and children a bit faster. That can be a red flag for men, rather than just letting things go where they naturally go. Even though you can bring that up on the second or third date, I always tell people that on the first date, you want to get to know the person. Have fun, see if there’s a connection, and then you can ask, “What are your views on marriage? What are your views on children?” When it’s pushed too quickly, it’s a red flag for most men because they’re either caught off guard by the question or unsure whether you’re the right person even to be thinking that way.
Now, on the flip side, for men, their red flags often come from talking too much about themselves and focusing on their possessions. There’s nothing worse than a man on a date talking endlessly about himself—what he owns, how much money he has, how much he paid for something, or showing off what he can afford. That’s a major turnoff for many women because it comes across as egotistical.
As for other red flags on first dates, what I tell my clients to look for are straightforward things. I always ask, “What are your three red flags?” They’ll usually come up with examples such as someone who talks too much about themselves, is rude to others, or constantly talks about their ex. That last one is big—talking about your ex on a first date, especially in a negative way. It shows a lack of empathy in the moment. No matter what your ex did, they shouldn’t be put on blast to someone you’re just starting to date. And if you talk about your ex in a way that shows you might still be in love with them, still have feelings, or wish you’d never broken up, that’s another huge red flag for the other person.
Jacobsen: How does this work for gay and lesbian matchmaking? Are the same principles involved?
Louis: It’s very similar in the LGBTQ community as well. There will always be an alpha and a beta in these situations. Everyone has tendencies—whether they’re rooted in insecurity, jealousy, rudeness, or controlling behaviour. These traits can appear in anyone. This crosses all boundaries: ethnicity, nationality, gender, or orientation. Whether it’s a woman dating a woman, a man dating a man, gay or lesbian relationships, red flags tend to be universal.
Jacobsen: Are there unique American qualities that are seen as red flags?
Louis: That’s an excellent question. I’ll say no to that, because people are people. If we talk about etiquette and manners, that applies everywhere. If you don’t have manners, that’s an issue no matter where you’re from. If you’re rude to servers, the valet, or anyone around you on a date, that’s a universal red flag. Insecurities and controlling behaviours are the same across the board. There isn’t a specific American or Canadian difference. What might differ is how forgiving or polite people are, depending on their culture. Some may avoid speaking up immediately because they think it’s inappropriate, a view that may also be influenced by religion. Certain religious or cultural norms can shape what’s considered acceptable behaviour in relationships.
Jacobsen: Most of your clientele are professional-level women, correct?
Louis: Yes.
Jacobsen: What trends do you notice among them—what they identify as red flags? How does that change across this arc? Because you mentioned mid- to late-thirties women who want children often feel a greater sense of urgency. But what about more broadly?
Louis: Let me start with the first part and break this down. Women in business—my high-level clientele—are usually more established. They can afford their own lifestyle and are very clear about what they want from dating. This can make things difficult because these women, whom I call “boss” or “alpha” women, tend to be less tolerant. They already have their three non-negotiables set and know exactly what they want. The man sitting across from them might be a great person, but because they’re dominant in their professional space, that control sometimes carries over into their dating life. The balance can get skewed. They’re often more impatient and think they know exactly what they want, dismissing potential matches too quickly. As a result, they sometimes overlook genuinely good partners because they come in with an agenda—expecting a certain calibre or lifestyle.
You see this in matchmaking, too. Many matchmakers say they’ve had clients reject five or more dates in a row simply by reading profiles and deciding, “This person isn’t for me,” even when the profile actually fits what they claim to want. The same thing happens with men—it goes both ways.
Now, on the other side, I also work with women who aren’t as financially successful but are more insecure. They tend to “go with the flow.” They want a guy to like them. They’re looking for someone who shows genuine interest in them.
They’re less likely to pick up on red flags as quickly as others because, as I tell them, they’re auditioning for the guy instead of the guy auditioning for them. I always say, “Why are you auditioning for him? The guy should be auditioning for you.” You should sit back, observe, and see if he’s listening, communicating well, and showing emotional intelligence—rather than putting on a show to impress him. Then you realize you thought the date went well, but he doesn’t call back for a second one. That’s a problem because they’re not recognizing their own red flags or the ones the man is showing. They’re more tolerant than others.
Jacobsen: How many of the clients who come to you in their thirties arrive with negative attitudes about dating in general—either from bad experiences or frustration?
Louis: It’s about half and half. Half feel like there’s just no one out there for them because they can’t find a profile that matches what they want. The other half are genuinely discouraged, saying things like, “I’ve been on all the dating apps. I have dating fatigue. I can’t find the right guy. Is there even one person out there for me?” With those clients, I have to focus on rebuilding their self-image and self-worth. With the more established women, I have to help them tone things down and step out of their alpha mode—to reconnect with their feminine energy and openness.
Jacobsen: What about online content that isn’t from real experts? Do you have clients who absorb that material and then come to you needing to unlearn it—so you can bring them back to a healthier balance?
Louis: Yes, absolutely. I have one client who actually goes to his “best friend,” ChatGPT, and uses it as a secondary dating coach. He’ll ask, “What do you think about this?” or “I went on a date—here’s my summary—can you break it down for me?” He’ll then come back to me with all this data and say, “Here’s what ChatGPT told me.” I tell him, “Okay, I see this, but you’re missing key details. How did the date actually go? How did you feel?” ChatGPT can only give him the general averages of what usually happens, but it can’t reflect who he is or how he showed up. He’s feeding the AI what he thinks happened, not what really did. So I have to walk him through that and get him back to real, human insight.
Jacobsen: What about contemporary factors—things like social media, which didn’t exist in earlier dating eras? How does it play into red flags today?
Louis: Social media plays a huge role now, in several ways. It’s introduced new terminology—gaslighting, breadcrumbing, benching, ghosting—all of which shape how people interpret dating behaviour. People see a post or a TikTok explaining these terms and immediately apply them to their own experiences. They also hear others’ stories about bad dates or relationships online, and that colours how they view their own. Dating apps themselves function as a form of social media, with people sharing experiences and asking for feedback. Sometimes they get good advice, but often it turns negative, becoming a kind of mob mentality where everyone piles on instead of helping someone reflect honestly. It amplifies anxiety and judgment instead of empathy and understanding.
Jacobsen: There were two more sophisticated ones—let’s run through one or two. In one instance, a solution is to disassociate—not disrespectfully—but to say, “Thank you very much, take care,” and ensure communication is clear. One is subtweeting. Another is vaguebooking. So, to define them: vaguebooking comes from Facebook—it’s cryptic, emotional, and dramatic without naming names.
Subtweeting comes from “sub,” as in subtext, and “tweet,” as in Twitter—or X now. It’s when someone talks about another person without tagging them, so everyone knows who they mean, but technically, they didn’t say it. That’s where the passive and relational aggression comes in. It’s important to acknowledge it calmly when it happens, communicate explicitly but not excessively, and then disengage if needed. That approach came up in another interview with a family and relationship therapist who focused on trauma.
Louis: Right, and my feelings on both of those are that when people go online to subtweet or vaguebook, they’re really looking for validation. If you’re airing your dirty laundry online, unless someone has done something truly awful to you, it’s unnecessary. For example, about a year and a half ago, there was that viral story in New York about a man who dated hundreds of women.
These women eventually found each other and created a Facebook group dedicated to him, realizing they’d all dated the same guy. Good for him for his popularity, but the point is that they publicly exposed him because he’d misbehaved. In a case like that, fine—there’s a justification. But if you’re too uncomfortable to break up or have an honest conversation—just saying, “It was nice seeing you, but this isn’t working out”—then posting about it for validation is the wrong approach.
That’s what social media has become, however. Everyone puts their lives out there—TikToks, dances, comedy clips, bloopers, people falling or embarrassing themselves—it’s all public. No one keeps things private anymore. People rarely process experiences privately; instead, they post and let strangers judge.
Jacobsen: When it comes to that kind of behaviour, you have to make an individual judgment about what you’ll tolerate, and once you decide, you have to own it. Whether you allow it to continue or respond in a calm, dignified way—that’s a matter of personal integrity. What this brings to mind for me is the idea that privacy is dignity. We still have some of it left, though we’ve lost a lot in the internet era. When you’re working with professional clients, do you incorporate that idea—privacy as a form of dignity—into your advice?
Louis: Yes, I do. I always consider everything, but I also have to be mindful of how people are feeling. Sometimes clients share things that, in my head, seem trivial or avoidable—I might think, “Really? You couldn’t see that?” But those are their genuine feelings and experiences. I have to take it seriously and be fully present for them, no matter how small it seems to me. It’s similar to journalism—you might write something from your perspective, but someone else with all the facts might correct you. That’s what I do with my clients. I guide them toward perspective.
Sometimes, I have to mute my phone, shake my head, or chuckle because what I’m hearing is so unexpected. But these are real issues in their lives, and my job is to meet them where they are. Whether it’s a client who uses ChatGPT as his “best friend” for dating advice or someone asking about something they saw online, I have to listen and make a thoughtful, professional judgment.
Unless it’s a friend —Scott — or a close friend, then I’ll say, “What are you doing?”
Jacobsen: Sure. Then you’re allowed. Friends are the ones who’ll talk trash to your face but speak well of you in public.
Louis: Friends are off limits. I’ll tell them, “You’re being dumb.”
Jacobsen: Three questions. What are the old red flags that are still around? What old ones have evolved? And what are the brand-new ones?
Louis: Let’s start with the old ones—the tried and true. The first three would be talking about yourself too much, talking about an ex, and poor manners or etiquette, which includes being rude. Those have never gone away.
As for newer red flags, one of the biggest is constant phone use. People bring their phones to dates, keep checking them, scrolling, texting—it’s a major red flag and just plain rude. Another one is love-bombing. It’s been around forever, but the term itself is more widely recognized now. It’s when someone showers another person with excessive affection early on, often coming from insecurity.
And an older one that’s evolved is respecting boundaries. Decades ago, men often took the lead—they’d order for women or make decisions for them. That behaviour doesn’t align with today’s norms, especially in light of the MeToo movement. You have to be conscious about respecting autonomy and comfort levels.
Talking about your ex used to be more common. Dating was more conservative—you’d pick someone up, meet their parents, maybe bring flowers. Back then, people would often compare their date to their ex, saying things like, “My last partner never did that,” or, “You do this so much better.” Whether positive or negative, those comparisons were a way to process and move forward. It was a bit more accepted then than it is now.
Jacobsen: What about overthinking? People not doing the obvious thing—just putting themselves out there?
Louis: Yeah? What do you mean exactly? Give me an example so I’m on the same track as you.
Jacobsen: They keep coming to you for advice, taking notes on their phone or even in a notebook. They thank you, they go on a few dates, maybe cancel at the last minute—but they’re not actually being proactive about dating.
Louis: That makes sense. That’s rooted in insecurity, maybe introversion. If you’re unsure of who you are when dating—and you should always just be yourself—that uncertainty can turn into imposter syndrome. I had a client once who told me he just wanted a woman to like him for who he really was. He admitted that on previous dates, he’d pretended to have more money than he actually did. He’d built up this façade, but by the third date, he couldn’t sustain it. He was insecure about his true self, convinced that women wouldn’t like the genuine him. But he was still going on dates, so clearly, he had something going for him.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Chris.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/01
English
Piccolino Coffee in Sumy is more than a café; it is the life’s work of its owner, who has spent over 24 years in the coffee trade. Beginning as a barista’s assistant in Italy and later trained at Universita del Caffè Illy, he returned to Ukraine driven by nostalgia and love, which led him to Sumy. Starting with a restored retro Volkswagen T3 coffee bus, he built the brand “Piccolino Coffee,” expanding into a full café. Despite war-related challenges, staffing issues, and supply disruptions, the café thrives as a symbol of resilience, community unity, and authentic coffee culture in Sumy.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: The first question: what prompted you to open a coffee shop right now, and why in Sumy?
Andrii Poznanskyi: In fact, I have been in the coffee business for a very long time – more than 24 years. This is the work of my life, which began long before the full-scale war. When I was 16 years old, I started working as a barista’s assistant in an Italian café, then I won a scholarship to study at Universita del caffe Illy. Although I lived in Italy for seven years, I was tormented by nostalgia and wanted to return to Ukraine. My story in Sumy began about six years ago, and it was not immediately a coffee shop in the classic format.
Jacobsen: Why Sumy?
Poznanskyi: There is an important personal reason – love brought me to this city. And from here the business began to develop. At first, we worked out of a small coffee bus. I had long been fascinated with retro cars and dreamed of a Volkswagen T3, because this car is a legend. It is a genuine retro vehicle, with the engine located in the back. I wanted a yellow car with a high roof, something cartoonish and visible from afar. When I decided on the car, I could not have imagined it would be so hard to find. It took about half a year to locate the right vehicle. With my father, we brought it from Stryi, and I drove across Ukraine in it, though I had no idea what condition it was in. The car was my peer, 35 years old. The vehicle was completely empty, so my father-in-law and I repaired it ourselves because we had little money. We had an old broken piano; we dismantled it and made a countertop in the van. In other words, we built everything in the bus with our own hands. I came up with the name for my retro car immediately — Piccolino coffee. When I worked in Italy, the café had a large staff. There was another Andrea working there, and it was hard to call me Andriy Poznansky, so they called me Andriy Piccolino, which meant “small.” That name stuck with me.
Later we opened a small coffee shop on the balcony of a residential building, but then gradually expanded, and in time grew into this full-fledged separate establishment. So it is more accurate to say that this is not an opening “now” but a continuation of a journey that began long ago.
As for the expansion, it was a natural step: we grew, felt we had outgrown the old format, and it was time to “spread our wings,” move into a separate space, add seating, and expand the menu with desserts and other dishes.
Jacobsen: What difficulties did you face while creating and developing the business?
Poznanskyi: Speaking about the present time, during the great war, the main problem, of course, is the issue of safety. When you think not only about work but also about your family, about how to keep your loved ones safe, it creates significant pressure. Yet despite fear, there is always the need to move forward, to do something so that the business stays alive.
Another serious problem is finding staff. This is always a difficult process, especially if you have your own standards of work and style of management. Young people today often do not think about tomorrow, they work according to the principle “Figaro here – Figaro there.” The staff turnover is very high, and this creates big challenges. There were times when I worked almost alone for half a year, without a stable team.
And of course, it is impossible not to mention the problems with logistics and supply. At the beginning of the full-scale war, there was a period when coffee simply was not delivered, and we had to temporarily suspend operations. Later, there were problems with electricity, but we bought a generator and equipped the coffee shop so that it could function even without light and internet. In fact, we turned into a little “point of resilience,” where people could come not only for coffee but also to charge their phones, get hot water, or connect to Wi-Fi to work or call their relatives.
Jacobsen: What does an ordinary day in your coffee shop look like?
Poznanskyi: After the expansion, we started working an hour earlier – from 7 in the morning. This was at the request of clients: many people walk their dogs or rush to work and want to grab coffee early.
Our employees arrive 20–30 minutes before opening, start the cash register, and prepare everything necessary. We connected a modern “smart café” system: the coffee machine begins heating up in advance, even before the barista arrives at work. This saves time and allows us to open on time.
Every morning fresh pastries are delivered – croissants, quiches, bowls. We have regular visitors who will not go to work until they have picked up their “morning quiche.”
During the day, there are three main waves of visitors, when small queues even form: the first from 7 to 10, the second at lunchtime, when schoolchildren with mothers pop in for coffee or dessert, and the third after 5 p.m., when people return from work. In the evenings, we also have a good flow, because here you can sit down and chat. Given the café’s location in a residential neighborhood – that is a success.
Jacobsen: How did the community react to the opening of the new coffee shop?
Poznanskyi: It was incredible. Even during the “unofficial opening,” when we had just moved and were preparing the premises, people saw the open doors and started coming in. I had planned to tidy everything up first, but did not manage – because I was immediately behind the coffee machine. From early morning, dozens of people came, and we barely kept up with serving everyone. People congratulated us, brought flowers, gifts – little souvenirs that now decorate our café.
On the official opening day, the emotions were even stronger. There were so many guests that I was deeply moved, honestly, to tears. That day we served more than 600 portions of coffee! People shared stories, reposted our café on social media. I felt true support from the community and saw that for many, this is not just a business, but a symbol of resilience in difficult times.
Jacobsen: What safety considerations are important for you and your staff?
Poznanskyi: We equipped the café with a security alarm button and installed surveillance cameras – but that is about personal safety. As for the war… given the specifics of the neighborhood, we rely mostly on the “two-wall rule.” We do not have a shelter nearby, so in case of danger, people even come into the café – the walls here are thick, the building is strong, with a lot of reinforcement. The architects assured us that the structure can withstand heavy loads. It is not perfect protection, but it is the best possible under our conditions.
Jacobsen: Is this a means of survival, or the continuation of a long-term dream?
Poznanskyi: This is not a temporary project and not just a way to survive. This is the work of my entire life, the continuation of a dream I have been building for more than two decades. For me, the café is not only a business, but also a culture, a lifestyle, a way to bring people together.
Jacobsen: What message do you want to convey to people in Sumy through your café?
Poznanskyi: Our main message is unity. Coffee brings people closer. It is very important that a person who comes for coffee feels needed. In the café people meet, support one another, discuss important matters. We hold meaningful charity evenings. This is a space where new connections and even friendships are born. In addition, we try to develop real coffee culture. To show people that coffee is not just a hot drink “for a cigarette,” but something much more: taste, quality, tradition. We want people in Sumy to feel this difference.
Link to the page where you can see photos and videos: https://www.instagram.com/piccolino_coffee/
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Andrii.
–
Ukrainian
– Перше питання: що спонукало вас відкрити кав’ярню саме зараз і чому в Сумах?– Насправді я займаюся кавовим бізнесом уже дуже давно – понад 24 роки. Це справа мого життя, яка почалася ще задовго до повномасштабної війни. Коли мені було 16 років, він почав працювати помічником бариста в італійській кав’ярні, потім виграв навчання в «Universita del caffe Illy». Хоч в Італії я прожив сім років, але мене сильно мучила ностальгія, і хотілося в Україну. У Сумах моя історія розпочалася близько шести років тому, і це була не одразу кав’ярня в класичному форматі.
Чому саме Суми? Тут є важлива особиста причина – кохання привело мене в це місто. І вже звідси почався розвиток бізнесу. Спочатку ми працювали з невеликого кавового бусика. Я давно захоплювався ретроавтомобілями та мріяв про Volkswagen T3, бо цей автомобіль — легенда. Це справжнісінький ретромобіль, адже двигун розташований позаду машини. Хотів авто жовтого кольору, з високим дахом, який би виглядав мультяшно і його було б видно здалеку. Коли визначився з машиною, то і подумати не міг, що її буде так важко знайти. На пошуки необхідного автомобіля пішло приблизно пів року. З батьком пригнали машину зі Стрию, і я всю Україну проїхав на ній, хоча і не знав, в якому вона стані. Автомобіль був моїм ровесником, йому 35 років. Машина була повністю пустою, тож ремонтували її з тестем самостійно, бо коштів було небагато. У нас було старе неробоче піаніно, ми його розділили та зробили стільницю в машині. Тобто усе в бусику майстрували своїми руками. Назву свого ретромобіля придумав одразу — «Piccolino coffee». Коли я працював в Італії, то в закладі був великий штат працівників. І в нас працював ще один Андреа, а мене важко було називати Андрій Познанський, тож називали Андрій піколіно, що означало маленький. Так назва до мене і прив’язалася.
Потім відкрили невеличку кавʼярню на балкончику житлового будинку, але потім поступово розвивалися, і з часом виросли у цей повноцінний окремий заклад. Тому правильніше говорити, що це не відкриття «зараз», а продовження того шляху, який почався давно.
А що стосується розширення, то воно стало природним кроком: ми виросли, відчули, що переросли старий формат і настав час «розправити плечі», переїхати в окреме приміщення, додати місця для сидіння, розширити меню десертами та іншими стравами.
– З якими труднощами ви стикалися під час створення та розвитку бізнесу?– Якщо говорити про нинішній час, під час великої війни, то основною проблемою, звичайно, є питання безпеки. Коли думаєш не тільки про роботу, а й про сім’ю, про те, як убезпечити рідних, це створює чималий тиск. Та попри страх, завжди є потреба рухатися вперед, щось робити, щоб бізнес жив.
Ще одна суттєва проблема – пошук персоналу. Це завжди складний процес, особливо якщо маєш свої стандарти роботи та стиль керування. Молодь сьогодні часто не думає про завтрашній день, працює за принципом «Фігаро тут – Фігаро там». Дуже плинний колектив, і це створює великі виклики. Бувало так, що я по півроку працював майже сам, не маючи стабільної команди.
І, звичайно, не можна не згадати проблеми з логістикою та постачанням. На початку повномасштабної війни був період, коли кави просто не довозили, і довелося тимчасово призупиняти роботу. Потім були проблеми з електроенергією, але ми купили генератор, обладнали кав’ярню так, щоб вона могла працювати навіть без світла та інтернету. Фактично, ми перетворилися на маленький «пункт незламності», куди люди могли прийти не лише за кавою, а й щоб зарядити телефон, взяти гарячої води чи підключитися до вайфаю, щоб попрацювати або додзвонитися рідним.
– Як виглядає звичайний день у вашій кав’ярні?– Після розширення ми почали працювати на годину раніше – з 7-ї ранку. Це було прохання клієнтів: багато людей вигулюють собак чи поспішають на роботу і хотіли б узяти каву саме зранку.
Наші працівники приходять за 20–30 хвилин до відкриття, запускають касу, готують усе необхідне. Ми підключили сучасну систему «розумної кав’ярні»: кавова машина починає прогріватися завчасно, ще до того, як бариста приходить на роботу. Це економить час і дозволяє відкриватися вчасно.
Щоранку привозять свіжу випічку – круасани, киши, боули. Є постійні відвідувачі, які не поїдуть на роботу, доки не заберуть свій «ранковий киш».
Протягом дня є три основні хвилі відвідувачів, коли навіть створюються невеличкі черги перша з 7-ї до 10-ї, друга – обідня, коли школярі з мамами забігають за кавою чи десертом, і третя – після 17-ї, коли люди повертаються з роботи. Вечорами ми також маємо гарний потік, бо у нас можна присісти й поспілкуватися. Враховуючи розташування закладу в житловому районі – це успіх.
– Як громада відреагувала на відкриття нової кав’ярні?– Це було неймовірно. Ще під час «неофіційного відкриття», коли ми тільки переїжджали й готували приміщення, люди побачили відчинені двері та почали заходити. Я планував спершу все прибрати, але не встиг – бо відразу був за кавовою машиною. Із самого ранку приходили десятки людей, і ми ледве встигали всіх обслуговувати. Всі вітали, приносили квіти, подарунки – невеличкі сувеніри, які наразі прикрашають наш заклад.
У день офіційного відкриття емоції були ще сильніші. Було стільки гостей, що це мене дуже розчулило, чесно, до сліз. За той день ми видали понад 600 порцій кави! Люди ділилися сторісами, репостили наш заклад в соціальних мережах. Я відчув справжню підтримку громади й побачив, що для багатьох це не тільки бізнес, а символ стійкості в складні часи.
– Які міркування безпеки важливі для вас і персоналу?– Ми обладнали кав’ярню кнопкою виклику охорони, встановили камери відеоспостереження – але це про особисту безпеку. Щодо війни… то зважаючи на особливості району, найбільше орієнтуємося на правило двох стін. У нас немає укриття поруч, тому в разі небезпеки люди навіть заходять у кав’ярню – тут товсті стіни, будівля міцна, багато арматури. Архітектори запевняли, що конструкція витримає навантаження. Це не ідеальний захист, але максимально можливий у наших умовах.
– Чи це засіб виживання, чи продовження довготривалої мрії?– Це не тимчасовий проєкт і не просто спосіб вижити. Це справа всього мого життя, продовження мрії, яку я розвиваю вже понад два десятиліття. Для мене кав’ярня – це не лише бізнес, а й культура, стиль життя, спосіб об’єднувати людей.
– Яке послання ви хочете донести до людей у Сумах через свою кав’ярню?– Наше головне послання – єдність. Кава зближує. Дуже важливо, аби людина, яка приходить за кавою, відчувала себе потрібною. У кав’ярні люди знайомляться, підтримують одне одного, обговорюють важливі речі. Ми проводимо важливі благодійні вечори. Це простір, де народжуються нові зв’язки й навіть дружби. Крім того, ми намагаємося розвивати справжню кавову культуру. Показати людям, що кава – то не тільки гарячий напій «до сигаретки», а щось значно більше: смак, якість, традиція. Ми хочемо, щоб у Сумах люди відчули цю різницю.
Посилання на сторінку де можна подивитися фото на відео: https://www.instagram.com/piccolino_coffee/
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/31
William Dempsey, LICSW, is a Boston-based clinical social worker and LGBTQ+ mental-health advocate. He founded Heads Held High Counselling, a virtual, gender-affirming group practice serving Massachusetts and Illinois, where he and his team support clients navigating anxiety, depression, trauma, ADHD, and gender dysphoria. Clinically, Dempsey integrates EMDR, CBT, IFS, and expressive modalities, with a focus on accessible, equity-minded care. Beyond the clinic, he serves on the board of Drag Story Hour, helping expand inclusive literacy programming and resisting censorship pressures. His public scholarship and media appearances foreground compassionate, evidence-based practice and the lived realities of queer communities across North America.
In this wide-ranging discussion, Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Dempsey examine the state of LGBTQ+ rights in the United States amid renewed challenges to marriage equality and trans visibility. They explore Kim Davis’s latest Supreme Court petition, Joe Rogan’s controversial comments comparing Marjorie Taylor Greene and Hillary Clinton, and the lasting legacy of HIV/AIDS advocate Paul Kawata. Dempsey offers insights into fear, resilience, and mental health among queer youth and immigrants considering relocation. The conversation connects law, social behaviour, and the human need for dignity, showing how identity politics shape emotional and civic life today.
Interview conducted on October 23, 2025, in the morning Pacific Time.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Our sources are quite diverse today. We will see if we can get through all of them. This is for World’s Fine Words. The first item for today is from The Advocate by Christopher Wiggins. The justices of the U.S. Supreme Court will privately consider—at a November 7 conference—whether to hear a challenge related to marriage equality. The challenge is being brought by Kim Davis, a former Rowan County, Kentucky, clerk known for defying a 2015 federal court order to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples; she served about six days in jail for contempt.
She is someone who does not believe in equality under the law regarding marital status between heterosexual and non-heterosexual individuals. Davis was jailed a decade ago and claimed God’s authority in refusing to issue licenses to a gay couple. Obergefell v. Hodges is the 2015 decision that established a nationwide constitutional right to same-sex marriage. A 2024 Gallup poll found that 69% of U.S. adults support legal same-sex marriage, close to a record high of 71%. That margin does not change much over short periods, and the vast majority of Americans support it.
Eighty-three percent of Democrats support it. Seventy-four percent of Independents support it. Forty-six percent of Republicans support it. Democrats and Independents—the vast majority—support it, while just under a simple majority of Republicans do. Kim Davis is again citing God’s authority, as she did in her original 2015 challenge. She is likely taking a similar worldview in this new challenge. What is the psychology of someone who does not believe in a principle of universalism and ethics? And what are the impacts on people who love someone, or want to be with someone for economic convenience, yet cannot achieve equality under U.S. federal law?
William Dempsey: It definitely causes depression and anxiety. There is understandable distress among individuals who lack equal access. What people opposed to marriage equality often fail to understand is that it is not simply about marriage itself. A fair portion of the queer community is not necessarily fighting for the concept of marriage in the traditional sense, but rather for what marriage grants access to.
For example, if your partner has health problems, is hospitalized, and needs a healthcare proxy, you cannot even be in the same room with them if you are not their partner. Or, as you mentioned, there are tax benefits. Certain privileges come with being legally married that unmarried couples cannot access. That understandably causes significant anxiety and depression among those who are excluded. It is also notable that people who claim to defend the sanctity of marriage—such as Kim Davis, who has been married four times to three husbands—are not exactly strong representatives of that sanctity.
Jacobsen: The following item is based on a very prominent podcaster at this point, a sort of comedian on the side now—Joe Rogan, a comedian in the United States—who would probably come off more as an independent than any other political alignment. But he has claimed, apparently according to Sophie Perry in Pink News, that Marjorie Taylor Greene, a prominent Republican conspiracy theorist, is more pro-LBGTQ+ than Hillary Clinton. Let us see if I can find it here. His interview was with the founder of Oculus VR and the defence technology company Anduril Industries, Palmer Luckey, who said that the GOP representative was more supportive in comparison.
Luckey stated, “Hillary back in 2008 was against gay marriage, and she was out there saying marriage is between a man and a woman.” Not just a bond, but a sacred bond between a man and a woman. Rogan responded, “I’ve never thought about it, though—that might be a tell. Marjorie Taylor Greene would be far, far left of a Hillary Clinton running today.” Marjorie Taylor Greene has stated on social media, “Your identity is not your sexual preference or what you like to do in the bedroom. Most Americans disagree with the invasion of trans biological men in girls’ or women’s sports.
Don’t forget, Dem borders have daughters too, and do not want biological men beating their girls.” Democratic Representative Marie Newman, who has a transgender daughter, hung a trans pride flag outside her office in response to Greene’s anti-trans comments in February 2021 on X (formerly Twitter). Greene then put up her own sign that read, “There are TWO genders: MALE and FEMALE. Trust the science!” There is an image of this in the article. There is more, but what morality play is being portrayed here? Obviously, there is a narrative, but can you explain a bit about the psychology behind what is going on?
Dempsey: If we are talking about this from the lens of parenting, it represents the continuation of bullying behaviours. Children are very observant of what their parents do, especially if their parents are in the public eye. This kind of behaviour disseminates into what children imitate. With access to the internet, we are seeing increasing rates of online bullying because it translates from those modelled behaviours. Parents must remember they are teaching their children not only directly but indirectly through how they conduct themselves. Many politicians—and as we are discussing, comedians as well—should be more cognizant of that influence.
Jacobsen: Next, on GLAAD’s website, there is a good note for the week. It has not been a theatrical week; I had trouble finding dramatic news. But this one stands out positively. It is titled “Honouring Paul Kawata: A Legacy of Courage, Community, and Change,” by Tamia Ballard, a Community of Colour Junior Associate. Paul Kawata served for 36 years and is one of the longest-serving, most influential voices in the fight to end HIV. He retired as Executive Director of the National Minority AIDS Council (NMAC) on October 7, following the United States Conference on HIV/AIDS in Washington, D.C.
Lance Toma, Chair of NMAC’s Board of Directors and CEO of the San Francisco Community Health Center, said, “Paul’s legacy is written in NMAC’s DNA—our unapologetic centring of communities of colour, our coalition building across political lines, and our unwavering commitment to inclusion and equity—all of that comes from him.” That is a very positive story in the news. What is the importance of honouring those who have dedicated their lives to community service, particularly in leadership roles, which are not easy positions to hold? And what does it mean to a community when they see someone who consistently does good over a long period of time?
Dempsey: Someone like Paul was pivotal during a time in society when, and some people may disagree, even the government was turning a blind eye to those impacted by a very significant disease. There was a great deal of stigma surrounding HIV/AIDS, particularly the misconception that it only affected the gay community—which, of course, we now know is not true. HIV/AIDS does not discriminate by sexual orientation, but that was the prevailing belief in the 1980s. For someone like Paul to stand up and continue advocating, to push for clinical understanding and equality, was absolutely pivotal.
His work instilled hope in marginalized communities, including the queer community, even today, where we still see, in different ways, governments turning their backs on those same communities. Honouring people like Paul reminds marginalized and suffering individuals that there is another side to the struggle—that the work invested today can lead to future celebration. It helps rally voices to continue when discouragement is easy, especially now that the fight centers more around trans rights and trans healthcare. It shows there is still hope—that things can improve. On a more personal note, it is also about gratitude. It is essential to recognize and appreciate those who dedicate their time to their communities. Honouring people like Paul acknowledges that progress has been made through their efforts and that gratitude reinforces the value of such work.
Jacobsen: Time has reported on a decline in the desirability for LGBTQ+ immigrants to come to America, while some trans Americans are, quote, “fleeing.” I do not think it is necessarily widespread enough to trigger a mass flight. Still, there is undoubtedly an increase in people wanting to leave or searching for information—“Can we go to Canada?”—and that interest has definitely gone up. The article tells the story of Lizette Trujillo, who keeps her U.S. passport and a bottle of Mexican hot sauce in her purse—she is ready to go.
It reminds me of travelling by Amtrak through the southern states—perhaps New Mexico or Arizona—where a woman on the train sold burritos from a small stand for three dollars—the best burritos on Amtrak. So when someone says they keep hot sauce in their purse, I think of that: being ready to go, burrito in hand, on to the next stop. Anyway, this piece from Time is not investigative; it is more of a feature-length narrative, which fits the topic well. When people come to you in the context of social work, what is the perspective you hear from them on that spectrum—wanting to leave, planning to go, or actually fleeing? How do they experience and interpret that process?
Dempsey: From my experience and from what my team has seen, most people in the community are leaning toward exploring the idea of leaving rather than having definitive plans. There is a strong sense of needing to be ready in case something happens. One major challenge that many people are not thinking about is that, because of the executive order issued in January, the U.S. now only recognizes “male” or “female” as sex markers on federal identification documents such as passports. That creates significant barriers to international travel.
So, while some people are trying to leave the country because of new legislation or executive actions, those same policies are also limiting their ability to do so. I am curious to see how that balance shifts as more people realize that waiting until “things get worse” might not be an option—they may need to leave sooner if that is their plan, simply because they could lose the ability to travel later. The issue is not only about the countries people hope to move to, but also the restrictions of the country they are currently in. It is not as simple as packing up and leaving. While some countries have asylum options, there are many complex factors to consider. When I talk with people about what their plan might look like, it often unravels—many are speaking from fear rather than from a sense of logistical readiness.
The practical side of what the article calls “fleeing” has not caught up to the emotional state of fight, flight, or freeze. And that is what we are seeing: heightened stress responses. When we regulate our nervous systems, it is not that our opinions change, but our perspective broadens. It is understandable that when there is a perceived threat, people respond with fight, flight, or freeze—and right now, many are in flight mode. As an aside, it is interesting to reflect on how, in the 1960s through the 1980s, many queer movements were led by trans and gender-diverse people. Seeing members of that same community now feeling the need to “flee” is striking. I could say much more about that, but I am aware of our time.
Jacobsen: One crucial issue that is not discussed enough is the implications of categorical definitions. By reducing identity to “male” and “female,” we impose an overly simplistic model of human biology and psychology. For those who do not fit into those two categories, it becomes a problem similar to what animal rights advocates have faced since Descartes: the division between “animal” and “person.” Persons are seen as having identities and therefore rights, while animals are excluded. Later, that evolved into terms like “non-human animals” to remind us of our shared evolutionary context.
When laws restrict identity to only two categories, the implicit message is that anyone who does not fit into those categories is not fully recognized as a “person.” It is a profoundly unsettling implication—beyond a human rights issue, it cuts into the very concept of personhood. It is a kind of existential erasure hidden inside bureaucratic language. U.S. News & World Report and other outlets have noted a worsening decline in mental health among LGBTQ+ people generally, especially youth.
Dempsey: This trend parallels what we are seeing across youth in general, though it is statistically more severe for LGBTQ+ youth—as is true in many other areas compared to their straight peers. Youth mental health overall is declining rapidly, mainly due to internet access and online culture. There is much fear-mongering online, especially among teens, which fosters what I would call a “the world is ending” or “Chicken Little” complex.
I am not saying things are fine—far from it, especially for the queer community—but perspective matters. If we look back decade by decade, century by century, the queer community has endured and adapted through enormous challenges. The difference now is that everyone has access to global information, and that connectivity makes it easier to share and amplify fear—fueling collective anxiety—rather than channelling that energy into collective action.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Will.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/31
Amos N. Guiora is a legal scholar and former IDF Lieutenant Colonel known for pioneering legal accountability frameworks for bystanders and enablers. Influenced by his Holocaust-survivor parents and counterterrorism experience, he authored The Crime of Complicity, Armies of Enablers, and The Complicity of Silence. As Director of the Bystander Initiative at the University of Utah, he advocates for laws criminalizing institutional inaction, emphasizing moral and legal responsibility to intervene against abuse and systemic complicity.
Irina Tsukerman is a human rights and national security attorney based in New York and Connecticut. A Fordham Law graduate, she heads a boutique national security law practice and serves as President of Scarab Rising, Inc., a strategic media and security advisory firm. She is Editor-in-Chief of The Washington Outsider, focusing on foreign policy and human rights, and an active leader in the American Bar Association and New York City Bar Association committees on global legal affairs.
In this interview with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, they examine the intersections of cult dynamics, enabler culpability, and institutional failure. Tsukerman outlines U.S. legal frameworks distinguishing protected belief from criminal conduct, highlighting how cults exploit coercion, fraud, and trafficking under religious or social veneers. Guiora draws on his work on enablers and systemic abuse, from the FLDS to USA Gymnastics, emphasizing that harm persists through institutional silence. Together, they argue for criminalizing enablers—individuals and officials who, through inaction or facilitation, allow cycles of exploitation and abuse to continue unchecked.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we’re here with Amos Guiora and Irina Tsukerman. The topic of cults came up during one of my earlier conversations with Irina. Around that time, I had recently interviewed Amos, who is a leading expert on enablers and related issues. We’ve been covering clergy-perpetrated abuse, primarily within Orthodoxy but also across denominations, since it’s a broader problem. I thought this would be an interesting discussion because I’m aware of several cults, having covered one or two myself, and that experience was far from pleasant.
The most important lesson is: don’t cover them alone if you intend to take the work seriously. Let’s start with a working definition of a cult. It’s defined not by its doctrines but by its dynamics. A cult is a tightly controlled social group organized around a charismatic authority figure, employing psychological manipulation, social isolation, or coercion to demand absolute devotion—often at the expense of members’ autonomy and wellbeing.
This has profound legal and social implications, particularly for followers and their surrounding communities. From a legal perspective, Irina, what is the potential impact on a case brought forward by individuals who have experienced such abuse? And Amos, regarding community dynamics, when people leave these tightly controlled systems, what enables or constrains them as they try to escape highly coercive circumstances?
Irina Tsukerman: In the United States, there is no specific ban on “cults.” The law distinguishes between belief, which is broadly protected by the First Amendment, and conduct, which can be regulated or punished if it violates the law, public policy, or another person’s rights. If you’re in a group where everyone is genuinely voluntary and no laws are being broken, authorities generally cannot intervene simply because the group is unpopular or unorthodox; freedom of association and free exercise principles apply—subject to neutral, generally applicable laws. Employment Division v. Smith (1990) affirmed that neutral, generally applicable laws can be enforced even if they incidentally burden religious practice.
However, things are often much more complex. A cult is not merely a club or a social gathering. There is usually an element of fraud, indoctrination, manipulation, deception, abuse, or coercion. Where criminal conduct occurs—assault, child abuse, fraud, kidnapping, unlawful confinement, trafficking, forced labour—ordinary criminal laws apply (e.g., federal forced-labour statutes). There’s no constitutional definition of a “cult,” and courts avoid theological judgments about legitimacy. At the same time, laws that are not neutral or not generally applicable trigger strict scrutiny, as in Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. Hialeah (1993).
Additionally, while Smith remains the baseline rule, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (1993) restores a strict-scrutiny test for federal government actions that substantially burden religious exercise, and many states have similar statutes; later cases like Fulton v. City of Philadelphia (2021) further clarify limits when governments retain discretionary exemptions. In plain terms, groups cannot claim immunity from prosecution for assault, child abuse, fraud, unlawful confinement, kidnapping, trafficking, or forced labour by asserting a religious motive. An early Supreme Court case, Reynolds v. United States (1879), reached a similar conclusion in the context of polygamy, holding that religious duty cannot excuse criminal acts.
Beliefs are protected; people can believe whatever they want, no matter how bizarre. Harmful conduct, however, is not. That means prosecutors can pursue cult leaders or members engaged in abuse without having to decide whether the cult is religiously valid or even qualifies as a religion. Children’s welfare is often a significant issue in these cases because they are frequently involved. Federal and state statutes empower authorities to intervene when children or vulnerable adults—such as the elderly, those with mental health conditions, or those who are incapacitated—are harmed.
Under state child-protection laws, parents or guardians cannot withhold medical care or expose minors to physical or sexual abuse, even if they claim it is a religious right. In other words, children cannot be involved in sexual acts or rituals; this may seem like common sense, but laws exist because not everyone shares the same beliefs. For example, if faith healing leads to serious injury or preventable death, it is illegal, as in Commonwealth v. Nixon (Pa. 1992). Coercive indoctrination, forced labour, and similar acts can also be prosecuted under child endangerment, human trafficking, or labour exploitation laws. Though it may sound unusual, this falls within well-established legal doctrine.
The Trafficking Victims Protection Act is sometimes used against cults that employ unpaid labour under threat of spiritual or physical harm. Even if the threat is “spiritual,” such as eternal damnation, using it to force someone to work constitutes coercion under the law. If a person sincerely believes the threat and is compelled by it, it is treated the same as a physical threat. Conspiracy and RICO statutes also apply because cults often engage in financial exploitation, coercing members to turn over income, property, or assets to the leader or organization. They engage in extortion under spiritual duress, threatening eternal damnation, social isolation, or other harm, and they may make fraudulent promises of healing. These are fraudulent because no such healing occurs.
Where physical harm or financial deception can be shown, crimes such as wire fraud, mail fraud, and racketeering under RICO may be prosecuted. Although RICO was initially designed for organized crime, it applies to any ongoing criminal enterprise, including cult networks where financial crimes are central. There are many legal mechanisms for addressing such misconduct without infringing on legitimate religious freedoms.
Dr. Amos Guiora: Irina is the expert here. The only thing I can add—and I must emphasize this nine times over—is that the only thing I know about cults is how to spell the word. When I wrote Freedom from Religion and later Tolerating Extremism(or whatever the final title was), I examined the FLDS—the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints—which emerged from the mainstream Latter-day Saint movement. That sect, directly affected by Reynolds v. United States, practices polygamy. Depending on who you ask, groups like the FLDS—formerly under Warren Jeffs—are considered cult-like.
I did not call them cults, but rather cult-like. What drew my attention while writing was the clear harm being inflicted, particularly on children, though not exclusively. Consent was a significant question. When you, Scott, talk about enablers, the members themselves are not enablers; they are not in a position to be. My criticism, which I have written and lectured about, is that the State of Utah—specifically the Attorney General at the time—knew that children were in harm’s way. The law was also being violated, as polygamy is not tolerated. There is a limit to religious freedom when the law explicitly forbids polygamy. So, in this sense, the enablers would be government officials who knew of the harm and turned a blind eye. Those officials, not the rank-and-file members, would qualify as enablers. Those in Jeff’s inner circle—the ten or twelve men allowed to have sexual relations with minors under the guise of procreation—were perpetrators, not enablers, because statutory rape is a crime.
The larger membership, roughly 10,000 people, cannot reasonably be described as enablers either. Many were not there by free choice; they were born into it and stayed. Boys—so-called “lost boys”—were expelled from the community because they were considered sexual competition for the older men. The harm to children is well documented. The actual failure lies with state agents who did not act—who did not investigate, arrest, or prosecute. Those are the enablers. I cannot speak to other groups, as I have not examined them, but in general, absent enablers, such harm could not persist. If state agents know of abuse—child abandonment, child endangerment—and do nothing, then I agree: they bear responsibility. Another issue is whether members remain of their own free will. Consent is critical.
You two are too young to remember Jonestown, where people drank the poisoned Kool-Aid. Were children endangered? Absolutely. Were some complicit in enabling the tragedy? Likely, yes. At first glance, I defer to Irina on the cult question, but my focus remains: if state agents know and choose to ignore harm, that is where culpability lies. One final thought: if we define enablers as those who know of harm yet fail to act, can the law hold accountable those officials whose duty it is to prevent such harm? In the FLDS community in southern Utah, law enforcement officers were members of the faith themselves. It was a closed circle within a closed circle. I spent significant time interviewing former members—men, women, and children—and the stories were harrowing. For example, one woman, whom I will call Jane, was the fourth or fifth wife, and she was the youngest.
The husband punished her when she refused him sexually. The punishment was twofold: first, she was removed from the main house and placed in a shack; second, their children—his children with her—were denied food as a way to punish her. Denying children food is clearly child endangerment. He was punishing the children to punish her, even though they were his own children. To coerce her into sexual compliance, as her faith demanded, he deprived their children of food. That is a crime—you cannot starve your children. If state agents knew of such a situation and failed to intervene, they would be complicit. Child endangerment cannot be tolerated. As for adults within these groups, the issue is always whether they are there willingly or not. That is the invariable and inevitable question with such communities. My focus, however, is on children. While harm to adults is also significant, the protection of children must be the primary concern.
Tsukerman: The entire system of enablers fascinates me psychologically. How does someone reach the point where they decide to assist a cult leader, criminal organization, or sex trafficking network? How do they rationalize facilitating that kind of abuse?
Guiora: When I wrote Armies of Enablers, I interviewed survivors from USA Gymnastics—women who Larry Nassar assaulted—as well as student-athletes from Michigan State and Ohio State who team doctors abused, and I also spent significant time with survivors of Catholic Church abuse. The enablers were university and Olympic officials who prioritized institutional protection and reputation over the safety of victims, even when they knew abuse was occurring. For example, gymnast Maddie Larson—voted America’s favourite gymnast—told me the girls were sent to Nassar’s hotel room for “treatment” at night.
As Maddie said, and I quote her in my book: “Who the fuck sends a 14-year-old girl alone to a man’s hotel room at night?” What did they think would happen? It was all presented as medical care. I had no idea before writing how much money was involved in women’s Olympic gymnastics—enormous financial incentives. There was an explicit quid pro quo: Nassar’s signature was required for an athlete to compete, even when they were injured.
In exchange for his approval, officials ignored the abuse. Some of those girls were sent alone, unaccompanied, to his hotel room at night. Your reaction—the disbelief—is the right one. It’s the only sane response: who sends a 14-year-old girl alone to a man’s hotel room?
Tsukerman: The obvious question is why they thought Larry Nassar—of all people—was the right choice. There are many qualified professionals out there. Wouldn’t it make sense that the team’s mental and emotional wellbeing would be better under someone who wasn’t abusive?
Guiora: He wasn’t the coach, either. He was the doctor.
Tsukerman: Right, was he seen as a doctor who wasn’t abusive?
Guiora: They didn’t see him as abusive. Larry Nassar was widely respected. He was an osteopathic physician specializing in spinal injuries, particularly in women, which is why he worked with Michigan State and USA Gymnastics. He had an excellent professional reputation for years. It wasn’t until Rachel Denhollander and later Jamie Dantzscher came forward that his crimes began to surface. Dantzscher, who was the second to report him—Denhollander was Jane Doe One, Dantzscher Jane Doe Two—was initially slut-shamed by her former teammates. Eventually, they realized she was right, and many others came forward. Nassar had assaulted hundreds of young women. That scale of abuse requires what I call an ecosystem of enabling.
Enablers have lengthy discussions and rationalizations. There are different theories about their psychology, but from my standpoint as someone focused on criminal law, I argue for criminalizing enablers—not just criticizing them morally or ethically, but prosecuting them. I’m currently writing a law review article on this. For instance, at Baylor University, fifty-two women reported being raped by football players. If fifty-two came forward, we know the real number is far higher. Yet, complaints were handled internally—or ignored altogether. It’s systemic. As much as perpetrators are monstrous, the enablers are, to me, the greater problem.
Tsukerman: Under RICO statutes, if enablers commit any overt act that furthers a criminal network, they can be charged as accessories to a crime. But enforcement depends on how the statute is applied, and that doesn’t always happen.
Guiora: You’re absolutely right. There’s aiding and abetting, and there’s accessory liability—but enablers occupy a murky space between those. I’ve testified about criminalizing enablers in Australia, the Netherlands, and the United States. Legislators struggle with it because they mistakenly view enabling as a crime of omission—failing to act—rather than a crime of commission—actively doing something to facilitate harm. I made that same mistake myself when testifying before the Victoria Parliament in Australia and later corrected it. Enabling is an act of commission. Convincing lawmakers of that distinction is difficult, but it’s essential. When I’m not speaking with Scott, I spend my time with legislators, because unless we address the enabling ecosystem directly, this kind of abuse will persist indefinitely—until your hair looks like mine.
Tsukerman: I would argue that, based on the Larry Nassar case, these people did not simply stand by doing nothing. They weren’t frozen like statues—they actively delivered the girls to his hotel room. That’s not inaction; it’s facilitation of a crime.
Guiora: I’ll tell you a story from Michigan State. Lindsay Lemke, the captain of the women’s gymnastics team and one of Nassar’s patients, reached her limit. She went to her coach, Kathy Klages, and said, “I can’t do this anymore.” Klages told her, “Lindsay, if you go forward, I’ll have to tell your parents.” Lemke was twenty-one. Then Klages added, “Think about how this will affect Larry’s family,” and finally, “Scholarships are given, and scholarships are taken.”
Tsukerman: That’s blackmail.
Guiora: Another survivor, Tiffany Thomas Lopez, was assaulted by Nassar approximately 150 times. Maddie Larson, by contrast, was violated around 750 times. Tiffany went to the team trainer—who was a woman—and demonstrated what Nassar had done to her, saying, “I’m not going to tell you, I’m going to show you.” The trainer was horrified and told her to report it to the head trainer, Destiny Teachnor-Hauk. Instead of helping, the head trainer and the coach conspired to have Tiffany removed from the team.
A few years ago, during a video call, Tiffany suddenly began choking herself while we were talking. I was in Israel, panicking, trying to figure out how to call emergency services from abroad. When she finally stopped, I asked her what had happened. She said, “They’re fucking choking me.” Not Nassar—the ecosystem. That’s why I emphasize the importance of addressing enablers. And, incredibly, those two women are still employed at Michigan State University.
Tsukerman: How is that even possible? Why weren’t they sued for massive damages?
Guiora: They were. Michigan State was sued, and there was an administrative hearing to determine whether those women should remain employed. The administrative court judge in Lansing ruled that there wasn’t sufficient evidence that they had been dishonest in their testimony. Tiffany was in the courtroom. It was devastating.
Jacobsen: That’s horrifying.
Guiora: There are no words. “They’re fucking choking me.” That tells you everything you need to know.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Amos and Irina.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/30
Riane Eisler, an Austrian-born American systems scientist, futurist, and human rights advocate, is renowned for her influential work on cultural transformation and gender equity. Best known for The Chalice and the Blade, she introduced the partnership versus dominator models of social organization. She received the Humanist Pioneer Award. Drawing on neuroscience and history, she argues that peace begins at home and calls for a shift in worldview to build more equitable, sustainable, and compassionate societies rooted in connection rather than control. The three books of hers of note that could be highlighted are The Chalice and the Blade—now in its 57th U.S. printing with 30 foreign editions, The Real Wealth of Nations, and Nurturing Our Humanity: How Domination and Partnership Shape Our Brains, Lives, and Future (Oxford University Press, 2019).
In this interview with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Eisler examines Homer through her partnership versus domination lens, arguing The Odyssey and The Iliad glorify the hero as killer and vilify the feminine. Eisler connects Homeric narratives to her four cornerstones—family and childhood, gender, economics, and care for Earth—insisting peace begins at home. She contrasts the blade with the chalice, symbolizing nurturing power and transformation. Penelope’s subordination and the execution of enslaved women exemplify domination’s logic. The interview invites reconstructive storytelling.
Interview conducted on October 18, 2025.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we’re here with Riane Eisler. We’re going to be talking primarily about The Odyssey, following the faith-based conversation, language, and narratives. Why The Odyssey?
Riane Eisler: I was surprised, going back to The Odyssey and The Iliad, to find that Homer was the propagandist—the secular propagandist—for what I call the domination system. I had thought about the fact that The Odyssey is full of references to the older, more partnership-oriented system in which female figures and deities also played a significant role. But I didn’t realize how The Odyssey and The Iliad are pure propaganda for the hero as a killer—the hero’s journey centered on the hero as a killer.
National Geographic has prominently covered Mary—famously, a December 2015 cover story on how the Virgin Mary became “the world’s most powerful woman,” and more recent historical features—Mary as the only female figure in a very strange pantheon where only the Father and the Son are divine, and she, the mother of God, is the only mortal figure. Maybe they will also share a new analysis of the Odyssey. It’s in the air, this revisiting. It’s both deconstruction and reconstruction.
Jacobsen: Do you find that this reinvention or re-presentation within a contemporary cultural milieu is almost like—metaphorically—an immune system reaction, the mythos defending itself from diminution?
Eisler: I don’t think of it as the immune system, though I like that idea. The immune system of humanity is at risk because of the domination system. As I’ve said many times, we’re not only interconnected by technologies of transportation and communication but also by technologies of destruction, such as nuclear bombs, and more slowly by climate change caused by technology guided by a domination system. We are facing an existential risk. You may be right that this revisiting is, in a sense, an immune system reacting to the contemporary regression to rigid domination systems, which idealize the hero as killer.
The reaction does consist of both deconstruction and reconstruction because we humans need stories—we live by stories. The stories we’ve inherited, whether secular or religious, are not only justifications of domination but also vilifications of the female. You see clues of that throughout The Odyssey. The four cornerstones are all there.
Jacobsen: What values do cultures use to define the “hero,” and why is the killer elevated within that set of values in The Odyssey?
Eisler: Domination systems are held together by fear and force—fear of pain, whether it’s fear of being fired by those on top or punished by caregivers or parents. It’s something taught very early. I always return to the four cornerstones research identifies: family and childhood; gender; economics—because we don’t reward care, which is coded subordinate and “feminine” though it is central to the distinction between domination systems and partnership systems; care for people starting at birth; and care for Mother Earth.
Mother Earth—that’s another clue, isn’t it? And of course, there’s story and language. When we intervene in story and language, we take into account all four of these cornerstones, plus probably a fifth one, which I didn’t make a cornerstone because it’s implicit: fear and violence, pain or pleasure, holding the system together.
I wrote about this in Sacred Pleasure, which came out in 1995 with HarperCollins. That book prefigures much of my later thinking and writing.
Jacobsen: How are women as personae portrayed in The Odyssey? Some general characterizations—how is the female form represented and implicitly judged in The Odyssey? You also hinted at this earlier.
Eisler: One of the core components we haven’t recognized as linked to the domination system is how nearly all progressive social movements over the last 300 years have challenged the same thing, a tradition of domination —whether the Enlightenment, which questioned the so-called divinely ordained right of kings to rule; the feminist movement, which questioned the so-called divinely ordained right of men to rule over women and children in their homes; the anti-racism movement, beginning with abolitionism; the environmental movement, challenging the so-called divinely ordained right of man to dominate nature, or the peace movement.
If you look at war rather than peace, the assumption is that peace is not just an interval between wars. Peace begins at home. That connects the dots between the first cornerstone—family and childhood—and warfare. People who are raised in domineering households, in highly punitive environments, learn those models of power early on.
Research shows that people raised in domination households—highly punitive environments—are much more likely to accept and support wars. But the point you’re making is about the female form, and I want to emphasize this, how integral the subordination of women and rigid gender stereotypes are to all four cornerstones.
We’ve long assigned fixed roles to the male and female forms and ranked the male over the female, with no one in between, even though there have always been people in between. This ranking is central to all four cornerstones. We have a gendered system of values in economics: there’s always money for weapons, for wars, for the hero as killer—but somehow never enough for feeding, nurturing, and caring for children. It’s a very irrational system, what I call “reality stood on its head.”
In reimagining The Odyssey, the female forms are either vilified—the Sirens devour men; Scylla and Charybdis are a monsters—or sexualized, reduced to sexual objects for the male hero. Yet within The Odyssey, figures like Circe and Calypso remain powerful female archetypes. That power is a remnant of earlier, partnership-oriented traditions. But in the Homeric framework, these figures are vilified, and even Penelope—though still powerful in her way—is subordinated. Odysseus, the hero as killer, must be her consort to gain legitimacy, but she herself is portrayed as obedient and constrained.
Even her son, Telemachus, can tell her to be silent—an astonishing reflection of the patriarchal norms of the time. Telemachus, the son of Odysseus and Penelope, is ordered by Odysseus to execute the enslaved women after they clean up the carnage left by his slaughter of the suitors. Odysseus is a killer—that’s his defining trait—and that legacy of violence has persisted into our modern epics, our blockbuster films where the hero kills the villain.
The villain isn’t always female today, but in The Odyssey, the villains are often female, including the enslaved women. There’s no trial, no notion of justice or human rights—only the rule that might makes right.
Jacobsen: If the phrase could summarize the dominator model in that kind of literature, “might makes right,” what would be the equivalent summary statement for a partnership model?
Eisler: It’s The Chalice and the Blade—two symbols, both powerful. The blade represents domination, power over others, and it has become embedded in our language and institutions. The chalice, by contrast, symbolizes partnership, the power to nurture, to sustain, to create rather than destroy.
It’s a sign of movement toward partnership thinking to reject that older idea of power as domination. Ultimately, in the domination system, power means the power to take life—the hero as killer. The chalice represents a very different power: the power to nurture life. Women’s bodies, for example, produce milk—literally sustaining life.
This creates what I call a biological obstacle to domination. So, in the mythology of the domination system, women and female archetypes must be controlled or diminished. The Jungian archetypes are steeped in this framework. The animus—the masculine principle—has agency, while the anima—the feminine—is either man’s inspiration or his temptation and ruin.
We’ve been indoctrinated from birth into this domination mythology. That’s not to say Jung didn’t make valuable contributions. His concept of the shadow is an important one, and we’re still in a transitional period where these frameworks coexist.
Would a society oriented more toward partnership still require such archetypes? A society where care work is economically rewarded, and children aren’t raised in fear or physical pain? What’s clear is that our task now is to show that there’s a better alternative—and that alternative is partnership, a system of mutuality rather than of in-group versus out-group.
Jacobsen: As a side note, historically, how has the chalice been used—either in ritual or mythology? Since we’re talking about old myths, it seems appropriate to explore that. The blade’s symbolism is obvious, but the chalice’s story seems more elusive.
Eisler: I’m not an expert on the mythology of the Holy Grail, which of course is the chalice, but obviously it’s been co-opted into later stories. In the Arthurian legends, for example, the hero encounters the Grail and transforms. Through contact with the Grail, he gains the capacity for empathy, which is a profoundly human trait.
That story is one of the few that makes explicit the possibility of transformation. We are a remarkably flexible species; we can change. We can recapture our capacity for empathy. But even in that story, the empathy is directed toward a king, a superior within a rigid social hierarchy—which is rarely noted.
Jacobsen: The Odyssey—what are some of your original findings in reframing it?
Eisler: I think, first of all, it’s essential to recognize the clues to an earlier time. All of Odysseus’s major adversaries are female monsters—the vilification of the feminine as a narrative device.
The vilification of the female—of woman—is everywhere. Penelope remains an influential figure, so the clues are still there. The hero is the killer; he slays monsters, exploits Calypso and Circe sexually, and ultimately gains his power through Penelope, who becomes his instrument for authority and rulership.
There are so many signs of domination in The Odyssey. Take the double standard surrounding Odysseus’s infidelities with Circe and Calypso. His sexual adventures are treated as natural and unremarkable—of course, he does that. Meanwhile, poor Penelope must remain chaste, endlessly weaving and fending off the suitors.
Then there’s the execution of the enslaved women, killed supposedly for having relations with the suitors. Were they forced? Did they even have a choice? It doesn’t matter to the narrative; they’re vilified and slaughtered without question. The scene is a chilling emblem of absolute power and moral hypocrisy.
Jacobsen: That raises the question—how would one rewrite The Odyssey? If we’re engaging in both deconstruction and reconstruction, what would The Odyssey look like if it were not only the hero’s journey but the journey of both hero and heroine?
Eisler: We’ve never really had the heroine’s journey as a central theme of mythology.
Jacobsen: In contemporary media—which I don’t watch much of—the heroines often invert the male model. They become violent, aggressive, adopting the same dominator values in a So, basically, the female form becomes the man-killer hero, and what’s changed is the shape, not the content.
Eisler: Absolutely. She’s still conditioned to accept that as the “normal” or “natural” order. It reminds me of what Gandhi said: we must not mistake the habitual for the natural norm. That observation is profoundly relevant.
Because when the heroine imitates the hero, nothing changes—it’s still the same story. It still glorifies killing. That’s NOT reconstruction; it’s co-option!
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Riane.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/29
Hugo Daniel Estrella Tampieri is a journalist, professor, conflict management and human rights specialist, and secular humanist. In 2023–25, he served as Advocacy Director on the Board of Atheist Alliance International, working across Latin America and Europe. He founded the Argentine Secular Humanist Association and formerly represented Latin America in Humanists International (formerly IHEU). Estrella founded and chaired the International Student/Young Pugwash from 1999 to 2003, contributing to peace-focused and humanist networks. He has taught at the University of Pisa’s Master’s program in Peace Studies and the Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna’s International Master’s program in Human Rights. He was CFI’s Transnational Director and UN representative for the Council for Secular Humanism. He is a scholar and a member of the University of Pisa’s Interdisciplinary Center on Jewish Studies. He was also a consultant to the Hebrew University of Jerusalem’s Program on Peace Teaching. He teaches and writes on secular ethics, disarmament, and the religious dimensions of totalitarianism.
In this interview with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Estrella examines Latin American antisemitism in 2025. He cites post–October 7 surges in incidents, mainstreaming older conspiracies (Protocols, blood libel, “Andinia Plan”), and Holocaust distortion. Argentina’s context includes President Javier Milei’s symbolism, while Chabad-Lubavitch is clarified as a religious, not a political, organization. Estrella distinguishes anti-Israel policy critique from anti-Jewish harassment, flags Soros-centred conspiracism, and warns about persistent online disinformation. Solutions prioritize education, secular integration, youth exchanges (similar to the Erasmus program), and robust fact-checking. Measurement should combine surveys with socio-political indicators of unrest. He argues that prosperity and pluralism reduce scapegoating, whereas inequality and populism fuel a resurgence of hostility across the region.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: All right. I am here with you. If you ask what data best captures antisemitism’s trajectory in 2025 across Latin America, region-wide monitoring shows sharp increases since the October 7, 2023, Hamas attacks and the ensuing Israel–Hamas war. In Brazil, the Jewish umbrella body CONIB reported a 961% month-over-month surge in reports in October 2023 compared to October 2022, and its 2024 annual tally reached 1,788 cases (up 26.8% from 2023 and approximately 350% from 2022). In Argentina, the DAIA recorded 687 complaints in 2024, 15% higher than in 2023, and highlighted more violent street assaults. These spikes align with record highs observed in parts of Europe (e.g., the UK’s highest-ever 4,103 incidents in 2023), although baselines and monitoring methods vary by country.
Hugo Estrella: What has become mainstream in many places are older antisemitic ideas that had been quieter in public life: blaming “the Jews” for political discontent or inventing conspiracies about control of governments or territory. In the Southern Cone, for example, the “Andinia Plan” fantasy about a Jewish takeover of Patagonia is a well-documented antisemitic hoax with neo-Nazi roots.
Likewise, medieval tropes such as the blood libel and the charge of “deicide” (that Jews killed God/Jesus) are classic, long-discredited forms of antisemitism. However, they still circulate online and in protest culture.
Specifically, regarding Argentina, President Javier Milei was born and raised a Roman Catholic. He has publicly expressed interest in converting to Judaism, but has not converted. He appointed Rabbi Shimon Axel Wahnish as Argentina’s ambassador to Israel and announced that Argentina intends to move its embassy to Jerusalem in 2026. As of August 31, 2025, this move has been announced but not yet completed.
Also, to be precise about labels: Chabad-Lubavitch (“Lubavitchers”) is a Hasidic movement within Orthodox Judaism—a religious movement, not a political or “fascist” faction. Moreover, the literary reference: Umberto Eco (not “Humberto”) explored the manufacture of antisemitic conspiracies—including the notorious forgery The Protocols of the Elders of Zion—in his novel The Prague Cemetery (2011). Scholars universally recognize the Protocols themselves as a fraud.
Finally, while Latin America has clearly seen increases, the intensity of these increases can differ by country and over time. Several European countries also registered unprecedented levels after October 7, which is a valuable context when comparing “how bad” things are across regions.
I would even say folkloric, but it is not a massive phenomenon as we see happening in Europe with the left-wing demonstrations and the pro-Gaza or pro-Palestinian groups that deny the existence of Israel and are beginning to target Jews in Europe. Fortunately, that is not yet happening here. However, the tendency and atmosphere are present, and the situation is ripe for these individuals to emerge nowadays. However, it is not something that is mainstream within the intelligentsia.
At the universities, for example, no one is promoting cutting ties with Israel. It is a very popular phenomenon, but confined to lower socioeconomic layers of the population. It has not yet become part of the political agenda or mainstream political discourse. It is far from that. However, it could become something worse. One never knows how these things will end.
Jacobsen: What are some blind spots? So you have data. You capture specific trends. However, some things are not captured in the data. Those missing pieces are the blind spots. What are the blind spots that the data is missing? What are other areas of further study—ways to identify new types of antisemitism that are legitimate phenomena but not pursued in current research? Two possibilities come to mind. First, old forms of antisemitism that have always existed but have not been studied much. Second, with the advancement of communications technology, the internet, and new forms of social organization, new expressions emerge.
It could be as stark as the difference between print culture, which produced publications like Der Stürmer, and today’s websites, such as the Daily Stormer, or message boards like 4chan or 8chan. However, it could also be more subtle—for example, antisemitic tropes appearing in video games or in media content. That is not being studied enough to capture it.
Estrella: In my view, it is still more connected to traditional antisemitism. What you mentioned are technological upgrades—new ways of adapting the same old prejudices to different audiences. They strike at various levels but remain linked to the same groups: ultranationalists, conspiracy theorists, and people who claim to “really understand what is going on in the world,” who then add the “Jewish factor” as part of society’s problems. But nothing fundamentally new. The groups are basically the same: ultra-nationalistic and conspiratorial.
Whether from fascists or certain left-wing groups, you hear claims that the United States, Israel, George Soros, capitalism, weapons manufacturers, laboratories, and even vaccines are all somehow part of the same conspiracy. There is something for every taste—different aspects of antisemitism tailored to various audiences.
For example, I was talking to my new neighbour, the son of a lifelong friend who just moved in next to us. It came out in conversation that he said, “You know why the Israelis are so interested in the support of President Milei? Because they will run out of soldiers, they need Argentine youth to be brought to fight for them. That is what they want.” I thought—What are you talking about? Where does this even come from? However, this illustrates how, depending on the person you speak with, an antisemitic comment may emerge at some point.
Being Jewish, we are used to that. It happens in most circumstances. What is different now is that with Gaza in the news, it has worsened and become more widespread. People feel the need to impose order on things they do not understand. Instead of applying Occam’s razor, they prefer conspiracy theories as explanations.
Moreover, if you try to explain rationally, most people prefer the irrational over the rational. They distrust evidence. It is more exciting for them to believe spy stories than to accept simple facts.
As I said, it is widespread—but not too severe here. Confrontations still happen, however. For instance, abroad, in Italy or Spain, I have had to remove many friends from Facebook because of offensive comments they posted or repeated, simply because I am Jewish. People assume I side with Netanyahu, even though I have always opposed him.
There is no way to put it into words. They insist: “I am not antisemitic, I am anti-Zionist.” However, when you press them, what they really mean is that Jews should be expelled and Israel should not exist. They argue: “You invaded the country.” That does not match historical fact, yet they are blind to evidence. Such rhetoric is not typically used in Argentina. It may appear among some on the extreme left in Argentina or Chile, but it remains confined to niche groups. It is not popular or mainstream.
Jacobsen: A question: which narratives are most active now? For instance, Holocaust distortion—which could mean minimization, denial, or something else—or the “Great Replacement” theory, or the Count Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi conspiracy theory. These issues arose during my interview with Dr. Alon Milwicki, the senior researcher at the Southern Poverty Law Center. You see many of these trends fracture into various variations. Some are sci-fi, fantasy, or supernatural in tone. Others are grounded in real-world events but misinterpreted, misinformed, or explicitly racist. From your perspective, what narratives are most common now?
Estrella: I would not say that Holocaust denialism is dominant—that is mainly off the table. What I see today, though, is partly the result of how Prime Minister Netanyahu and some extreme right-wing figures in Israel have politicized the Holocaust.
Estrella: This has produced what I call a kind of “Holocaust-ification,” which, in my view, is even worse than denial. It takes the Holocaust and says, “You see, now you are behaving like the Nazis. You learned from them.”
To me, that is more damaging than outright denial. It is terrible. As I said, it is partly the responsibility of those on the Israeli far right who argue that every criticism of Israel’s government today is based on antisemitism. That position flips arguments upside down and allows others to claim: “Well, antisemitism was not so bad—because if there had been more antisemitism, perhaps it would have prevented what you are doing now.”
It is deeply worrying that the Holocaust—something so unique, so terrible—has been manipulated in this way. Only people with a superficial understanding of what the Holocaust was, and of the magnitude of its crimes, would compare it directly to events in Gaza today. The situations have little or nothing to do with each other. Such comparisons show how some are using Holocaust memory not to honour history, but to diminish its singularity.
The way people live with Holocaust history—especially in Europe, where the crimes occurred—has been a burden for many. Now some feel “relieved” by being able to say: “We were not so bad, because you are just as bad. It is time to equalize things.”
I am not speaking about Latin America here. I mean Europe. These are the kinds of discourses you hear in protests and demonstrations. For example, think back to the Gaza flotilla incident about fifteen years ago, when Israeli forces boarded a ship carrying activists. Many of us—Jews included—who support Israel and also support peace were horrified by that and opposed it. However, if the slogan “Freedom for the flotilla” is turned into “Palestine free from the river to the sea,” then we are in serious trouble.
So the problem I see is that Holocaust memory is backfiring—what you might call Holocaust backlash—because of how Netanyahu and others have used it politically. What Netanyahu and his allies are doing worries me very much. That is one narrative that horrifies me. You also asked about Holocaust denial and the Great Replacement theory.
That theory is also present in Argentina. It appeared in the 1950s and 1960s in the Patagonia region. Today, it is not something popular, but you begin to hear it from people who would have never voiced it before. There is the situation of Israeli boys and girls who, after finishing their military service, travel abroad—often to the Himalayas or other remote places—to clear their minds after the harrowing experiences of the army. They are still very young, and they want to reconnect with nature and escape from violence. Some Israelis have travelled to Patagonia, where they hike and explore the forests.
Thus, the conspiracy began to circulate: that they were coming to Patagonia because they wanted to settle and create a “new Israel.” The claim is that Israel is too small, too troubled, so Israelis supposedly intend to take over Argentine and Chilean sovereignty and build a new Jewish state there. This same conspiracy also circulated in Chile.
In the 1990s, a wealthy Jewish businessman, Douglas Tompkins, founder of The North Face and Esprit, purchased large tracts of land in southern Chile and Argentina. He was deeply involved in environmental conservation. Chilean nationalists spread rumours that he was buying the land to establish a “new Israel.” In reality, when he died in 2015, he left the land to the Chilean government with the stipulation that it be preserved as protected nature reserves. The conspiracy theories collapsed with time.
However, this is precisely the kind of discourse we see in replacement narratives: that Patagonia is sparsely populated, so “it would be easy to replace” the locals. It remains explicitly tied to that part of the land, Patagonia.
Jacobsen: Where do antisemitic tropes intersect with the broader conspiracy mindset?
Estrella: Part of the conspiracy mindset—or really the backbone of it all—goes back to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Historically, this forgery emerged in the early 20th century, drawing on antisemitic themes that had circulated since the late 19th century, particularly in France during the Third Republic.
Historically, antisemitic narratives were often backed or organized by Catholic forces and intertwined with anti-democratic and anti-Republican movements. They go back to that period and retain the same structure to this day. They appeal to people who feel uncomfortable with liberal democracy or with socialism as part of democratic pluralism, as well as to those who harbour nationalist fears of diversity. These narratives have also become linked to newer minority groups that were not visible at the time.
What used to be framed as a “Judeo-Masonic” conspiracy—accusing Jews and Freemasons of working together to destroy Christian roots and national strength by promoting rationalism, doubt, and democracy (“the rule of numbers over the rule of the best”)—has evolved. Today, it incorporates anti-feminist rhetoric, anti-atheist prejudice, and above all, homophobia.
For example, in many countries, population decline is discussed as a demographic challenge. Some conspiracy-minded groups blame this not on economic or social trends but on “accepting homosexuals as equal to heterosexuals.” Figures like Vladimir Putin, who is one of the most vocal opponents of LGBTQ+ rights, reinforce the idea that tolerance of homosexuality is leading to societal collapse, arguing that it undermines “traditional families” and fuels demographic decline. It is, of course, absurd, but these views are widely spread.
This links back to antisemitism because Jews have historically struggled for equality, for secularism, and for recognition as equal citizens in minority contexts. Because of this, Jews have been accused both of driving the communist agenda and of exploiting capitalism. The contradiction does not matter—Jews are made the scapegoats in both narratives.
In the United States, for instance, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), an organization historically associated with Jewish lawyers and activists fighting for civil rights, is now dismissed by some as part of a broader “anti-traditional” agenda. All of this ties into the recurring fear that diversity itself destabilizes society.
Moreover, now, with trans people, LGBTQ+ visibility, and gay pride movements, we see how this logic extends. In Hungary, for example, during Budapest Pride, European liberal leaders had to march in solidarity to prevent participants from being beaten or jailed. This is part of the ongoing narrative of Jews and now other minorities being cast as “infections” in the healthy body of the Christian nation.
So today, Jews are no longer the only visible minority targeted. Other minorities—LGBTQ+ people, feminists, secularists—are blamed with the same conspiratorial logic once reserved for Jews. Moreover, it is interesting to see how these older patterns of scapegoating have been expanded and repurposed.
People who, in theory, should be embracing Jews—because we are on the same side in terms of equality and minority rights—are sometimes marching in defence of Hamas. That is the most baffling thing. For instance, movements like “Rainbow for Gaza,” where LGBTQ+ people show support for Hamas, are beyond imagination. However, still, the Jew will always be seen as the Jew, even when one would expect a natural alliance with other minorities.
This is especially ironic since there are so many gay Jews, so many atheist Jews. I myself say: I am Jewish and an atheist. I belong to the tribe, but not to the religion. Most Western Jews are free thinkers. Since Spinoza, Jews have given the world both a rational God and atheism. We are, in a sense, both the “bodies” and the “antibodies” within the same people.
To return to your question, it is the same mindset applied to different historical situations. Those who defend tradition, nation, and the “untouchability” of the past always stand against the enlightened. In the end, it is obscurantism against enlightenment.
Jacobsen: Now, outside of conspiracies, what about geopolitics? For example, geopolitical disinformation. It can be used in almost absurd ways, but with tragic consequences. Take the Russia–Ukraine war: at the start of the full-scale invasion on February 24, 2022, the Kremlin spread the narrative that they had to stop a “neo-Nazi takeover” of Ukraine. This was used as a pretext to justify their aggression, an international crime. The implication was that Nazis ran the Ukrainian state, yet its president, Volodymyr Zelensky, is both Jewish and a former comedian. So, Russia’s message was that a Jewish “neo-Nazi” was leading the country. That is far-fetched, but it has a more concrete and seemingly grounded logic than the more abstract conspiracies. What about geopolitical disinformation or misinformation in this regard?
Estrella: That is very evident in the discourse Putin directs toward the West. He knows he has a dual audience. On the one hand, there is an anti-European, antisemitic, nationalist current that includes elements of the far right in Italy and leaders like Viktor Orbán in Hungary. On the other hand, some support Putin because he presents himself as defending “traditional values” of family and nation. Moreover, he has significant financial resources to support these groups within their own national politics and political games.
And then it triggers the reaction of the nationalist groups, who are also racist and do not want to accept any migrants. For example, Putin facilitated the transfer of Syrian migrants into Belarus, pushing them toward Poland. This was a way of destabilizing the European Union and supporting extreme right-wing movements. It is the twisted mind he has—he knows how to exploit the West’s fears, and the concerns of Europeans in particular.
Look at what has happened in eastern Germany, where a majority of people in some areas now vote for the AfD (Alternative für Deutschland). One has to acknowledge that Germany did an excellent job with denazification and with accepting responsibility for the Holocaust, but this did not take hold in the same way in the former East Germany. That region has become a stronghold of neo-Nazis.
In terms of geopolitics, I believe this trend will continue. Moreover, of course, in North Africa and across much of the Islamic world, there has always been antisemitism. Strangely, it is not as bad in Iran. In Iran, they are both anti-Israel and antisemitic, of course, but Iranian Jews are somewhat protected. They even hold a reserved seat in the parliament. This dates back to ancient times, to the Babylonian exile following Nebuchadnezzar’s destruction of the First Temple. The Jews who live in Iran have been there for millennia, so they are treated as part of the fabric of the country.
The same can be said about Jews living in Turkey, although the attitude there is more ambivalent. Both Iran and Turkey differentiate between their “own” Jews and Jews abroad, whom they regard as enemies because Jews in the diaspora are seen as part of the modern democratic, liberal world forces that threaten their authoritarian or monarchical systems.
This is quite worrisome. On the other hand, in the United States, we see people unquestioningly supporting the extreme right in Israel. For example, the born-again Christians who feel it is their duty to help Israel because they believe that once Israel triumphs, it will trigger the Second Coming of Jesus. It is nonsense—so much nonsense—but it becomes politically significant when articulated in the political arena.
Moreover, when I say “semi-religious,” I also mean the left wing that still clings to a kind of faith that Putin somehow represents a continuation of the USSR. These ideological distortions, whether religious or pseudo-religious, are deeply problematic when intertwined with politics.
Jacobsen: Oh, this one comes up quite often, both in interviews and outside of them. What distinguishes anti-Israel rhetoric from anti-Jewish harassment in civic spaces? For instance, a student who has no geopolitical interests but happens to be Jewish may still get harassed. Suppose someone has genuine geopolitical or policy disagreements with the Netanyahu government but no anti-Jewish sentiment whatsoever. They would not endorse any harassment of Jews—indeed, they might even be Jewish themselves. How does one thread that line? Obviously, it becomes harder when geopolitical tensions rise, because the “red button” is much bigger and more prominent. I will leave it to your discretion how much you want to address this.
Estrella: I would focus on one last name, which represents the whole madness: Soros. For more than thirty years, George Soros has been cast as the number one enemy, the supposed bandit or threat. Why? Because he chose to promote liberal democracy, to support the normalization of Eastern Europe after the Cold War, and to strengthen liberal values and rationalism. For this, he became the number one villain in the eyes of so many.
In the minds of conspiracy theorists, everything is linked to some underground management. For some, it is the Illuminati, for others, Freemasonry, but for many, it is Soros. Moreover, since Soros is Jewish, the logic goes “one plus one.” Even though he has nothing to do with the Israeli government—indeed, he is against Netanyahu and the religious right in Israel—he is still blamed for what is happening today.
The same happens with liberal Jews around the world. Anti-Zionist rhetoric quickly transforms into antisemitism in practice—whether in Greece, Italy, Spain, or anywhere else.
I read something recently that captures the dilemma perfectly: there is no way out. If you are a Jew and vocal in support of Israel, then you are blamed for what is happening in Gaza. If you are a Jew and against what is happening in Gaza, then you are branded a hypocrite, because you still want Israel to exist. In that case, you are not to be trusted—you are considered even worse than someone supporting Netanyahu.
So there is no escape. Whatever we say or think, we are still hated, because we are all cast as part of a conspiracy to erase Palestinians from the earth.
Moreover, of course, conspiracy theories multiply: some claim Israel wants to build a “parallel Suez Canal” through Gaza, and therefore must eliminate the Palestinians living there. Others insist Israel intends to seize oil or gas reserves under Gaza. These theories are absurd, but they circulate widely.
We are guilty of everything. It is no longer just the old charges—that Jews killed Jesus, poisoned wells, or spread plagues—though even those persist. During the COVID-19 pandemic, for example, conspiracy theorists claimed Jews put microchips in vaccines to control people’s brains, or that COVID itself did not exist.
Some conspiracy theorists described COVID-19 itself as a Jewish invention. They claimed people pretended it existed so that Jews could sell vaccines first, and then use those vaccines to “enter people’s minds” and control them. Again, we see this tied back to the myth of the “Elders of Zion.”
Jacobsen: This is a good point to shift into solutions. What historically informed, evidence-based practices help reduce the harms of antisemitism?
Estrella: Once, the very existence of Israel was presented as a solution. Many nationalist groups believed that the establishment of Israel would liberate their own societies by sending Jews away, making their countries “Jew-free.” That was their distorted idea of a solution.
In terms of a liberal mindset, the real solutions were education and general social well-being. In the 1960s, for example, antisemitism was far less widespread than today. It was the time of the baby boom, economic growth, and a broad sense of well-being compared to the war and postwar years. That prosperity reduced the perceived “need” for an enemy.
At that time, many Jews were also deeply involved in the advancement of science and technology. Because science and technology enjoyed popularity and prestige in the 1960s, Jews were often regarded as an asset. I believe antisemitism is closely linked to social conditions: when populations experience general well-being, the impulse to blame minorities decreases.
In my view, the problem is that the post–Cold War era was poorly managed. The collapse of the Soviet Union was a significant historical moment, but it occurred at the wrong time and under the most shortsighted leadership. After World War II, enlightened leadership helped shape a more equal world, one founded on education, human rights, and the principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter.
By contrast, after the Cold War, inequality increased. Many believed that anything was possible, but instead of channelling the resources saved from the arms race into improving lives, those resources were squandered. Rather than investing in people, education, or quality of life, the period was dominated by neoliberalism and conservative politics.
Instead of distributing the peace dividend fairly, inequality grew. The West abandoned models that had worked during the Cold War—welfare states, investments in education, and socialized healthcare systems, such as those in Canada. Instead of following that path, post–Cold War politics widened the gap between the rich and the poor.
After the fall of communism, European governments began dismantling welfare states. The logic was: “There is no longer a communist threat, so why should we invest in people? Let us privatize everything. Let people pay. Why should I pay for your healthcare? Why should I pay for your education?”
This shift was reflected in the culture. It was so well captured in Bret Easton Ellis’s American Psycho, later made into a film. That novel perfectly expressed the ethos of the late 1980s and 1990s: greed, individualism, and disregard for social responsibility. In my view, this was the basis for the enormous inequality we live with today.
Inequality has bred pervasive fear—fear of losing one’s job, fear of losing one’s home, fear of starting a family because you do not know whether you can support children. Meanwhile, billionaires like Elon Musk or the ultra-rich could solve many global problems in a single day, yet masses of young, educated, capable people lack stable jobs and must take on 30- or 40-year debts to buy a home. This breeds frustration.
If that frustration exists in the center, it is even worse at the periphery. In the heart of the West, it creates instability: people no longer trust democracy and instead vote for populist leaders. At the borders, it generates war, aggression, and extremism.
To me, this is the actual root cause of today’s instability. It began in the late 1980s, with the advent of Reaganomics in the United States and Margaret Thatcher’s policies in the United Kingdom. These policies triumphed just as the world was being reshaped after the Cold War. However, instead of offering equality and opportunity, they offered inequality and austerity.
In many African and Near Eastern countries, groups that had once been communist or pro-communist during the Cold War shifted toward Islamism, because religion became the only ideology available as an alternative. This occurred partly because local elites failed to manage the transition effectively. Islam, with its community networks and strong social bonds, filled the vacuum left by communism. However, it also fueled authoritarianism and religious extremism.
This, I believe, is not something dependent on Jews themselves but on broader social conditions. What affects us directly is how these conditions give rise to antisemitism and conspiracy theories.
From the Jewish side, it is also necessary to resist the pull of ghettoization. For many years, Jews fought hard to leave the ghetto, to win equality and full participation in society. However, with renewed attacks against Jews worldwide, combined with rising Islamist radicalism and antisemitism in Europe, some Jews have turned back toward religion and a sense of ghettoization.
I do not think this is a good path, though I understand why people choose it out of fear. They feel safer retreating into insular communities—living in the same districts, sending their children only to Jewish schools, joining clubs only for Jews, often surrounded by guards. This response may feel protective, but in reality, it isolates us again.
Jacobsen: So you are distinguishing between voluntary community life, such as kibbutzim, which are still integrated with broader society, and a closing off from society altogether?
Estrella: EKibbutzim and community spaces are different—they integrate into society. What I mean here is cutting relations with broader society, not mixing, not sharing schools, universities, or clubs. That is what I fear. Unfortunately, many people, particularly those between 45 and 60 years old, have adopted this approach in recent years. Younger generations, fortunately, are less inclined toward it. However, I do see ghettoization returning in parts of Europe, and it troubles me deeply.
In the United States, harassment of Jewish students at universities—often by people on the left or center-left—also raises the risk of Jews retreating into ghetto-like isolation. Fear can push communities to retreat into what feels like safety, but is ultimately a false sense of security.
Jacobsen: Let me ask you this: What about civil society partnerships—NGOs, CSOs, and grassroots organizations that work steadily through networks over time? Can they reduce levels of antisemitism? What works in practice?
Estrella: People often speak of interfaith or religious dialogue, but I am skeptical of that. It is not about organizations or religions talking to each other. The key is a secular, mixed society. The more secular and integrated a society is, the more tolerant it tends to become.
From preschool through university, children and young adults must grow up in a diverse environment. That is the only way for others to realize that Jews are not alien, not a threat. We are just neighbours, classmates, and friends. When people grow up together, they learn that they have different traditions and different foods at certain times of the year, and it can even be fun to share those differences. However, it does not make us enemies.
The only long-term solution is to struggle for secularism, for diversity, and for a society where people accept that we are all human and we are all different. That is what leads to tolerance and resilience against antisemitism.
It is better—and in fact beautiful—to be different. We should not see any threat in diversity, whether in the colour of someone’s skin, their beliefs, or any other characteristic. It is simply a fact of life. You may be short, tall, blonde, or anything else, but at the end of the day, you are a person and deserve acceptance for who you are. We must place the center of our lives not in belonging to this or that group, but in our shared humanity.
That is why I call myself a humanist. We must acknowledge that we are all human. The more we accept that humanism stands for peace, respect, and equality, the fewer problems we will face in living together.
Jacobsen: Let me approach this from a more modern perspective, which is more challenging. How should educators build resilience not only to the classic antisemitic myths, but also to misinformation amplified by AI-generated content? Images and videos can increasingly be faked, but the real challenge already lies in audio and text, where our minds are less adept at distinguishing fact from fabrication. How do we build resilience to this stereotyping and disinformation?
Estrella: I am comfortable addressing this because I am a trained social communicator. From the perspective of communication theory, I rely on the idea of “two-step communication.” People tend to believe not only what they directly receive but also what is filtered through someone they regard as a reference or authority. In society, when we encounter information—even if it is fake—we often rely on a trusted figure in our circle to help us interpret it. That can be a safeguard, but it can also be dangerous.
Fortunately, with the flood of fake news today, many associations and organizations exist that focus on checking the accuracy of information. These fact-checking organizations play a crucial “second-step” role, countering misinformation and reinforcing truth. They must be supported and strengthened.
At the same time, some groups reinforce falsehoods—the anti-vaccine movement is a typical example. Even some medical doctors or scientists with misguided views act as “second-step communicators,” lending false legitimacy to disinformation.
To counter this, we need stronger fact-checking groups and also readiness for debate at different levels. At one level, dialogue is key: when talking to someone convinced by misinformation—for instance, about vaccines—we should avoid attacking and instead engage in a respectful conversation. The goal is to plant a seed of doubt and introduce alternative perspectives.
At another level, however, more vigorous pushback is necessary. We have seen this in the public sphere with figures like Richard Dawkins, who confront misinformation and pseudoscience head-on. Both approaches—dialogue and confrontation—are needed, depending on the audience and context.
The stronger forms of response are necessary when confronting those who exploit misinformation for financial gain or political advantage. They deliberately manipulate ignorance and profit from it, so the pushback must be firm.
Jacobsen: Then let me ask: if you were to measure antisemitism, what indicators could reliably show a rise or fall over, say, a year? In other words, how do we measure it correctly? To propose antisemitism as a form of prejudice is to define it as a conceptual construct with distinct properties. Once we determine those properties, we can measure them, track them annually, and assess trends. So how do we measure it both reliably and validly?
Estrella: As I said before, you can conduct sociological analysis through surveys, polls, or other traditional methods for measuring attitudes—much like marketing studies. You examine antisemitic attitudes across populations in a structured way.
However, I also consider more than just direct measures; I also take into account the socio-political conditions of a given place. If there is social unrest, frustration, or widespread problems, antisemitism is likely to rise. I am convinced of that link.
Antisemitism does not emerge out of nowhere. It is deeply rooted in the traditions of Christian societies—whether in the West or the East. In the East, in the lands of the former Byzantine Empire (Turkey, Greece, Russia, and surrounding regions), antisemitism has often been more vocal and overt. In the West, it persists as well, though in more subtle forms, partly due to the Reformation, Enlightenment, and other historical developments that have tempered its expression.
Social and philosophical progress over the centuries has made antisemitism in the West more subtle. However, whenever there is social unfairness, unrest, or political instability, antisemitic demonstrations or sentiments will likely resurface.
Jacobsen: Let us suppose you were given a large sum of money—imagine a Looney Tunes bag with a dollar sign on it—and told, “Fund any initiative you want to combat this problem.” What would you do?
Estrella: I would do the same as Mr. Soros. I would invest in education, specifically in programs that immerse young people and young professionals in the joy of moving from one country to another—something akin to the Erasmus program in Europe. Such exchanges expose people to diverse social and political environments, enabling them to learn from different cultures. This helps to educate the future leadership of the next 20 years.
I would create something like a Rotary-style organization devoted to investing in the brightest minds, regardless of their social background, and educating them in the values of diversity, liberal democracy, and the Enlightenment.
Jacobsen: Does the Argentinian context have any unique factors in this regard?
Estrella: Argentina was, in many ways, similar to the United States in the late 19th century. It was even more liberal in terms of its population, institutions, and secularism. It served as a good example of the “melting pot” idea. Moreover, in Argentina, the melting pot worked better than in the U.S., where the “salad bowl” model prevailed. In the U.S., you could be mixed, but you remained separate—still a potato, an onion, or a lettuce leaf. In Argentina, you became something new.
This melting pot worked. There was little, if any, racial tension. That was a positive thing. However, when economic troubles accompanied conservative rule, Argentina adopted the worst possible solution—populism. This ruined a country that had once been stronger than Canada or Australia. At one point, we were the fifth-largest economy in the world. However, 80 years of populism destroyed the potential of a country that could have been much greater.
They have dismantled almost all of the social safety net. What little remains, the new president is trying to destroy. Public education, free universities, and a robust healthcare system remain, but are under threat.
These were the things that made Argentina different from much of Latin America. It was a middle-class society. Public hospitals, scientific institutions, and a robust research system supported the development of a broad middle class. However, much of that middle class was nearly erased in the 1990s.
Now, what remains is being destroyed. Public hospitals, as well as the national system of science and research, are being defunded. If this continues, it will put an end to what was once a good country to live in.
Jacobsen: That brings us to the end. Hugo, thank you very much. You have given me a lot. Thank you very much. This will be a good contribution to the project.
Estrella: Let us stay in touch. Thank you. Goodbye.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/28
Pragathi Darapaneni, Ph.D., is a seasoned materials scientist and Senior Product Development Engineer at Schaeffler Asia with over 14 years of experience across national labs, academia, and leading automotive R&D. A specialist in lithium-ion and lithium-metal battery innovation, she has collaborated with global automakers including Honda, Ford, GM, and Toyota to advance next-generation energy storage for electric vehicles. Holder of four U.S. patents and numerous publications, she bridges cutting-edge research with industrial application. Beyond her technical work, Pragathi mentors women in STEM and contributes expert insights on clean energy, advanced materials, and the future of mobility.
In this interview with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, she highlights rare earths and critical metals—such as neodymium, cobalt, nickel, gallium, and lithium—as central to AI hardware, EVs, and semiconductors, while warning of concentrated supply chains dominated by China. Darapaneni emphasizes substitution research, recycling innovations, and “urban mining” to reduce dependency. She stresses that human talent, cross-disciplinary training, and advanced manufacturing capacity are as crucial as materials. Looking ahead, she foresees solid-state batteries, quantum materials, and AI-driven discovery reshaping global competitiveness.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Which rare earth minerals and critical metals are vital for advancing AI hardware?
Dr. Pragathi Darapaneni: AI hardware relies heavily on rare earth elements and critical metals, which enable fast andefficient computing and energy delivery. Neodymium and dysprosium are essential for high-strength permanent magnets used in advanced cooling and power systems. Cobalt and nickel stabilize high-energy-density batteries that power AI data centers and robotics. Gallium and indium are critical for semiconductors and photonics, while tantalum supports the manufacture of capacitors. These elements collectively ensure that processors, servers, and support infrastructure can operate at scale.
Jacobsen: How might supply chain vulnerabilities, such as those related to lithium, cobalt, or neodymium, impact global competitiveness?
Darapaneni: Supply chains for critical minerals remain concentrated in a few regions, particularly China. Disruptions—whether political, economic, or logistical—can slow AI hardware production, drive up costs, and limit access to next-gen chips, servers, and batteries. This creates a competitive imbalance, with countries or companies locked out of innovation cycles. Nations investing in domestic supply, allied trade partnerships, and recycling will maintain technological leadership.
Jacobsen: What potential substitutes or recycling strategies could mitigate risks based on dependence?
Darapaneni: Substitution efforts include developing sodium-ion and lithium-iron-phosphate (LFP) batteries that avoid cobalt and nickel, and researching rare-earth-free magnets. On the recycling side, advanced hydrometallurgy and electrochemical leaching are allowing recovery of neodymium, cobalt, and lithium from spent batteries and electronics. “Urban mining” is becoming a credible pathway to reduce dependency on newly mined materials.
Jacobsen: How do geopolitical tensions shape access to rare earths?
Darapaneni: Geopolitical tensions, especially U.S.-China relations, directly shape the availability and pricing of critical minerals. With China controlling ~85% of global rare earth processing, even minor trade restrictions have a ripple effect globally. This makes mineral access not just a supply chain issue but a national security concern, influencing defence, clean energy, and AI competitiveness.
Jacobsen: What role does human talent play in bridging research breakthroughs?
Darapaneni: Since materials alone don’t drive progress, human talent is the catalyst. Skilled researchers, engineers, and technologists are needed to develop new chemistries, optimize processes, and integrate materials into scalable systems. Cross-disciplinary expertise spanning materials science, AI systems, and manufacturing is essential to translate lab discoveries into real-world hardware.
Jacobsen: Where are the most significant bottlenecks in developing skilled workforces for AI hardware?
Darapaneni: The main bottlenecks are in advanced manufacturing and applied R&D training. Many graduates are well-trained theoretically but lack hands-on experience with pilot-scale production, semiconductor fabrication, or battery prototyping. Additionally, there are gaps in policy literacy and commercialization skills—understanding how to scale technologies within regulatory and supply chain constraints.
Jacobsen: How do you see the interplay of materials innovation and human expertise?
Darapaneni: Materials innovation sets the stage, but human expertise orchestrates the performance. For example, developing cobalt-free cathodes or rare-earth-free magnets requires not only scientific breakthroughs but also engineers who can adapt manufacturing lines and policymakers who can incentivize adoption. The interplay ensures that innovations are not just possible but practical.
Jacobsen: What emerging technologies or workforce shifts would dramatically reshape the AI electronics landscape?
Darapaneni: Emerging technologies like solid-state batteries, graphene-based conductors, and quantum materials could redefine hardware capabilities. On the workforce side, stronger global collaboration networks and training programs in data-centric materials science will be transformative. The convergence of AI with materials discovery—where AI itself accelerates R&D—will also reshape the landscape dramatically within the next decade.
Jacobsen: To conclude, what about global automakers—mainly those that rely heavily on electronics and complex circuitry for next-generation cars?
Darapaneni: The global supply chain for these inputs is already under pressure from tariffs and export restrictions. For example, China has introduced new export controls on several rare earths and on battery-related materials in recent years, which affect downstream industries.
In response, automakers—particularly in the European Union—are trying to reduce dependence on politically concentrated supplies. The EU’s Critical Raw Materials Act pushes domestic mining, refining, and recycling, and it even sets recyclability and recycled-content requirements for permanent magnets used in EVs and other products. Efforts also include developing “rare-earth-free” or reduced-dysprosium magnets and broader substitution where feasible.
There is substantial research and investment across EVs, permanent magnets, semiconductors, and power electronics to diversify materials and improve supply security—especially for components that currently rely on rare earth elements.
Jacobsen: Which countries are leading in terms of having sufficient quantities of these materials to continue operating at high capacity for their automotive industries into the foreseeable future?
Darapaneni: For rare earths, China is the top producer and the dominant processor; other notable producers include the United States, Myanmar, and Australia. For battery inputs: Australia leads lithium production (with significant reserves in Chile); the Democratic Republic of the Congo produces the vast majority of cobalt; Indonesia is the largest nickel producer; and China leads in natural graphite production and processing. China also dominates trade and mid-stream processing for many battery minerals.
Jacobsen: Given that, will China and the United States meet minimum needs for EVs and electronics over the next five to ten years?
Darapaneni: On current trajectories, yes—but with caveats. Mining capacity for lithium, nickel, and cobalt is expanding, yet processing remains concentrated (often in China), and policy moves—tariffs, licensing, and export controls—can quickly tighten markets. That means automakers in both countries are likely to meet core demand, but exposure to midstream bottlenecks and policy shocks will continue to be a strategic risk.
Jacobsen: So, will major countries like the United States—given their large automaker industries—have enough of these materials, despite tensions, to continue producing vehicles at or above their current capacity?
Darapaneni: The current situation requires caution. The United States and other economies are being very mindful of producing more than demand currently allows. That trend is definitely visible.
Jacobsen: Thank you very much for your time today. I appreciate it.
Darapaneni: Thank you. Goodbye.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/27
Dr. Marcus Anthony Hunter is the Scott Waugh Endowed Chair in the Division of the Social Sciences and Professor of Sociology and African American Studies at UCLA. A leading scholar on race, politics, and reparative justice, Hunter is the author of Radical Reparations and other influential works exploring social repair, education, and systemic inequality. His research and activism focus on building frameworks for justice that address historical harms, from enslavement to present inequities. As an educator, author, and activist, Hunter continues to shape public discourse on reparations, higher education, and the unfinished work of Reconstruction.
In this interview with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Dr. Marcus Anthony Hunter discusses California’s AB 7 reparations proposal and its broader implications for education and social justice. Hunter explains how AB 7 differs from previous reparations measures by focusing on higher education admissions for descendants of enslaved people without requiring new taxpayer expenditures. He highlights its legal grounding in Supreme Court reasoning and its role in testing whether reparations programs can survive judicial scrutiny. The conversation explores the history of educational access, the scope of California’s Reparations Task Force, and future pathways for social repair, including labour acknowledgments alongside land acknowledgments.
Interview conducted on September 17.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are with Dr. Marcus Anthony Hunter. He is an activist and author, the Scott Waugh Endowed Chair in the Division of the Social Sciences, and Professor of Sociology and African American Studies at UCLA. Thank you very much for joining me today.
Prof. Marcus Anthony Hunter: I appreciate it. I am happy to be here. Thank you.
Jacobsen: So, how does AB 7 differ from previous reparations-related proposals in California and other states?
Hunter: I will answer that with a slight adjustment: it is not so much that AB 7 is different. It is very similar to other proposals that have been put forward in the sense that it seeks a pathway to repair and heal from a history of enslavement and dehumanization.
It is also similar in that it considers the public square and public resources that can be devoted to repairing the harm. In the case of AB 7, it focuses on providing education opportunities—higher education in particular, so universities and colleges specifically.
It proposes that universities and colleges make special considerations in admissions for those who are descendants of enslaved people in the United States. So it is a suggestion, as it were. One of the things that makes it notable is that it does not require new appropriations. An important aspect that AB 7 really emphasizes is that not all forms of repair—or what we affectionately call reparations—require direct compensation or expenditure.
The legislation suggests: what if we start making considerations within the budgets we already have, by opening up the opportunity to add this factor into the profile of who we consider for college admissions? It helps people understand and reminds them that not everything has to come from taxpayers. Some of this is about creating a policy framework that allows universities and colleges—in the case of education—to do what they are probably already doing, or should be doing, but to do it in a way that does not make it seem as though the state is forcing them. Instead, it gives them the leeway to make those considerations based on their needs, applicants, and admissions goals.
Jacobsen: During the legislative process, what were the main arguments proposed in support of AB 7? Moreover, as a sort of sub-commentary, because you have said it does not require any additional funds—only working within current budgets with additional considerations—were these kinds of points used to counter objections to prior proposals in the United States?
Hunter: Yes. One of the general points of opposition around reparations has been direct compensation. That is the most opposed aspect of reparations. What happens, though, is that opposition to that particular form of reparations tends to conflate all the other forms of repair that exist.
In my own book, Radical Reparations, I argue that there are piles of injuries, piles of harm, and piles of repair: political, intellectual, legal, economic, spatial, spiritual, and social repair. AB 7 falls into the social repair category, where you really think about ways to repair the social contract. For example, after the Civil War, the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments were enacted, but there was no real infrastructure or pathway that fully enfranchised formerly disenfranchised members of the population. The social contract is where you want to get to, and one of the most important social goods is education. How do we then work within the idea that education is a social good?
One piece of opposition that came during the earlier stages of AB 7 was from a group whose name I cannot recall right now. They appeared to be connected to the opposition to Harvard that went before the Supreme Court. Specifically, it was a group of Asian American plaintiffs who argued that they were being discriminated against under Harvard’s race-conscious admissions practices. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of the students and against Harvard’s policy in the Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard case in 2023. That same coalition, or an allied group, showed up in California and testified in opposition to AB 7.
However, they represented only a small number of opponents. By contrast, a line stretched through the Capitol building, filled with supporters from a wide range of backgrounds. So in AB 7’s case, the opposition was far smaller than the number of proponents.
The second piece to note is that in that Supreme Court decision—commonly referred to as the “affirmative action decision”—Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurring opinion. In it, he said that if considerations were being made for freedmen or freedwomen, formerly enslaved people in America, that would be a different conversation, because those individuals constitute a special class. If you are talking about a special class of people that is distinct from what critics often call “reverse racism.” He made this point explicitly.
So what AB 7 is doing is picking up on that jurisprudence. If formerly enslaved people and their descendants are considered a distinct or memorable class, then let us take that up. One of the other points of AB 7 is not just about policy, but also about invoking the judicial branch in the reparations conversation. Up to this point, the courts have not been fully engaged outside of torts, meaning civil lawsuits. There have been tort cases seeking reparations across many decades. However, in terms of the court system being actively involved, AB 7 creates an opportunity to engage them because one of the ongoing questions around reparations is whether such measures would survive strict scrutiny—the highest standard of judicial review.
When we consider the Constitution, the question arises: if AB 7 or similar reparative justice programs were to reach the Supreme Court, would they withstand strict scrutiny? The idea of AB 7 is to take up the conservative justices’ point that enslaved people represented a special class, a designation dating back to the Freedmen’s Bureau. Congress explicitly treated them as a special class. If reparations efforts target that group, it is not the same as the kind of race-based admissions programs recently struck down; in fact, such efforts could survive strict scrutiny.
Of course, Justice Thomas raised that as a hypothetical. AB 7 is a way to test that hypothesis in practice.
Jacobsen: We live in a highly technological, scientifically advanced world. There are probably fifty or sixty nations that fall into similar categories under the United Nations and other international frameworks. So arguing for further education of American citizens is not a weak argument. It is a modern argument—one that benefits individuals directly and society at large. That is why AB 7 is not just a specific proposition, but one with broader, long-term benefits to American society.
Hunter: The history of the United States—especially around issues of race—has centred repeatedly on education. Think of Brown v. Board of Education. That was a case where leading legal scholars and civil rights leaders focused on education as the battleground for dismantling segregation and Jim Crow. Denying people the right to education strikes at a fundamental human right. AB 7 returns to that same principle: education is a social good. Most people agree with that. The question is how to preserve that good in an era of budget shortfalls and scarcity, particularly in a state like California.
The challenge is threading the needle between reparative justice and cost. AB 7 attempts to do this by creating a framework that does not require new expenditures but empowers existing institutions. If, as Justice Thomas suggested, descendants of enslaved people constitute a special class, then institutions should be empowered to recognize that fact and take it into account in admissions.
That way, universities can advance their objectives: producing a middle class of students that reflects the demographics of their state, region, nation, and world, and creating an environment where students learn from one another. Another key point is that this approach helps people understand that slavery is not simply a past event. It is an ongoing impact factor that shapes American life every single day.
Suppose you begin to bring in these new populations of students. In that case, you create a way for people to see that we are repairing the harm while also recognizing it in our future leaders, who will be educated alongside one another.
Jacobsen: Let us say you targeted a series of initiatives like AB 7 from 2020 into the 2030s as part of a palette of activist work. What other measures could be associated with this as points of change for improving the quality of life within the United States? Could these be centred in education or grow out of changes in education following AB 7, using it as a test case to build further reforms?
Hunter: One thing is that in higher education, state schools could be allowed to use AB 7 as a tool in their admissions processes without worrying about legal liabilities or lawsuits. It would give them the ability to pay special attention to applicants who can identify themselves as descendants of this particular class of Americans.
Another related idea, which I have written about, is labour acknowledgments. This also falls under social repair. Social repair is often about education—educating individuals or the entire population—for example, public awareness campaigns. I wrote about this recently in Black Enterprise for Labour Day, where I argued for labour acknowledgments.
In the United States, it is becoming increasingly common to hear land acknowledgments, a practice that has long existed in Canada. Land acknowledgments recognize that Indigenous peoples are the traditional caretakers of the land. However, we have to remember that in both Canada and the United States, European colonization involved two processes happening simultaneously: the dispossession of Indigenous land and the enslavement of Africans. Colonizers did not seize land in January and then return in June with enslaved people to work it. Both processes occurred together.
So the question is: if we recognize Indigenous dispossession through land acknowledgments, why not also recognize enslaved labour? Enslaved labour literally built Washington, D.C.
Jacobsen: It built the White House.
Hunter: Benjamin Banneker, a free African American mathematician and surveyor, was involved in the city’s design. Enslaved people carried out the construction. However, today, when we acknowledge land, we rarely acknowledge labour.
This could be done right now, every day. Especially in the original thirteen colonies, it is undeniable that enslaved labour built the states, their infrastructure, and their institutions. Philadelphia, the nation’s first capital, was built with enslaved labour. When George Washington and John Adams worked in the President’s House, enslaved people were the ones doing the work. Recognizing that history is part of social repair.
The overall point is that a land acknowledgment incurs no financial cost. However, it reminds people—before we begin the work of any given day—that we are in a location designed and built by enslaved Africans and their descendants. That is another way to think about social repair: informing people, making it ceremonial, and pairing it with land acknowledgments. This also emphasizes that land dispossession and enslavement were simultaneous harms. They were not separate or sequential, but intertwined.
Jacobsen: What is the scope of California’s Reparations Task Force? Could it coordinate with other task forces within the state to implement measures—beginning with Justice Clarence Thomas’s hypothetical recognition of freedmen as a special class, progressing toward practical decisions based on that recognition, and ultimately producing tangible benefits, including economic gains over the next decade?
Hunter: One thing that has been happening in California is that the state established the nation’s first statewide reparations commission. It produced a comprehensive report, and since then, other jurisdictions in California have adopted aspects of it or established their own commissions. Los Angeles has a commission, Los Angeles County is developing one, Oakland has one, and other municipalities are pursuing their own versions.
All of these efforts utilize the state’s report, which was created in collaboration with the California Department of Justice, as a legal and policy foundation. That state report provides legitimacy and a support framework, and local commissions then adapt it to their particular histories and contexts. Every part of California has a different relationship to the state’s history of slavery and racial discrimination, so each county or city is studying its own history, determining the scope of harm, and devising strategies and solutions.
Many of these local approaches will likely mirror the recommendations from the state report. At the same time, states beyond California are learning from its example. New York is establishing a reparations commission. New Jersey has pursued its own initiatives. Both are looking at California’s recommendations and process as templates for proposals.
The California state report itself is broad and detailed. It includes an extensive set of strategies and solutions across multiple domains of repair. That makes it not only a guide for California but also a model for the nation.
These efforts can unfold in various ways. For example, Evanston, Illinois, moved forward with the idea of using cannabis tax revenue to provide housing funds for Black residents who are descendants of enslaved people and long-term residents of Evanston. They focused on homeownership as their area of repair. That program has faced challenges because once you start connecting reparations directly to money, that is where the fiercest opposition arises.
Jacobsen: It becomes a matter of what is acceptable to the broader public, especially in California. Of course, there will also be pushback nationally across social media, news platforms, and political commentary. What lessons have you seen—whether through AB 7 or earlier efforts—about what works and what does not? In other words, where does opposition become insurmountable, and where has the timing or public awareness of U.S. history made people more receptive?
Hunter: What works is people simply embarking on the process. California was the first state in the nation to create a statewide reparations commission, and the sky did not fall. The state did not secede from the union. There was no riot or race war. What happened was a process: hearings, testimony, deliberation. People showed up, and they were passionate about the cause. I attended some of those hearings, and the passion was unmistakable. People disagreed about what remedies would be best, but there was no lack of seriousness or commitment.
Polling also shows growing support. For example, the Pew Research Center found that about 77 percent of Black Americans support reparations. Support within the harmed population is substantial and increasing. Where there is room for further growth is in moving beyond replication.
Many state, city, or county-level reparations efforts have been modelled very closely on H.R. 40, the federal bill first introduced by Representative John Conyers in 1989. After his passing, it was reintroduced and championed by Representative Sheila Jackson Lee, and more recently, Representative Ayanna Pressley has been a leading voice.
The next phase is greater cross-pollination between local and state initiatives and the federal effort. There should be collaboration across those levels of government. That is how reparations can grow into a more coordinated and sustainable national project.
We should not think of reparations work as simply “bubbling up” from local levels to Washington, D.C. Much of the energy creating that wave is grounded in what Representative John Conyers put forward with H.R. 40. That federal legislation remains the standard-bearer. However, people are not always told about the connections between state or local initiatives and the federal bill. California’s legislation may appear distinct, but in reality, the law establishing the state commission—and the policies or remedies it recommends—closely mirror H.R. 40.
Jacobsen: Let us touch these directly. What were the main criticisms of AB 7, and what were the responses?
Hunter: The criticisms were very similar to those raised in the Students for Fair Admissions case—that AB 7 targets a particular racial class and elevates that group at the expense of others. That was the central argument against it.
The argument for AB 7 is grounded in Justice Clarence Thomas’s own concurring opinion, which noted that considering descendants of enslaved people is not about unfairly elevating anyone. Instead, it is about addressing the unfinished work of Reconstruction and the Civil War. Descendants of enslaved people were designated as a special class after emancipation, and attending to their needs continues that unfulfilled obligation.
Jacobsen: Professor Hunter, thank you very much for your time today. I appreciate your expertise. It was nice to meet you.
Hunter: Thank you.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/27
Irina Tsukerman is a human rights and national security attorney based in New York and Connecticut. She earned her Bachelor of Arts in National and Intercultural Studies and Middle East Studies from Fordham University in 2006, followed by a Juris Doctor from Fordham University School of Law in 2009. She operates a boutique national security law practice. She serves as President of Scarab Rising, Inc., a media and security strategic advisory firm. Additionally, she is the Editor-in-Chief of The Washington Outsider, which focuses on foreign policy, geopolitics, security, and human rights. She is actively involved in several professional organizations, including the American Bar Association’s Energy, Environment, and Science and Technology Sections, where she serves as Program Vice Chair in the Oil and Gas Committee. She is also a member of the New York City Bar Association. She serves on the Middle East and North Africa Affairs Committee and affiliates with the Foreign and Comparative Law Committee.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Irina Tsukerman survey global flashpoints: a proposed Xi–Trump meeting in South Korea on trade, critical minerals, and ceasefires; China’s rare-earth curbs versus U.S. diversification. Tsukerman stresses leverage via Belt and Road, questions “debt-trap” narratives, and also dismisses Qi Group allegations. They clarify Reagan’s free-trade record and argue MAGA is neo-Buchananite. An obituary notes Queen Sirikit’s cultural legacy and resilience. On Ukraine, they parse sanctions, enforcement gaps, shadow fleets, and urgent air-defence co-production. Nigeria’s military reshuffle is deemed cosmetic without structural reform. Argentina’s austerity pits budgets against dignity, needing cross-sector partnerships to rebuild a viable middle class.
Interview conducted October 24, 2025, in the afternoon Pacific Time.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: All right. Today, we are here again with Irina Sukerman, a New York attorney. We’re going to be talking to our insiders today. Do you want to do Reuters and AP this time?
Irina Tsukerman: Yes, let’s do that.
Jacobsen: This is the biggest news we’re going to see: the two largest economies—the People’s Republic of China and the United States. Leaders Xi Jinping and Donald Trump are expected to meet in South Korea for talks centred on trade, critical minerals, and ceasefires—a very tall order. Trade and critical minerals are the sharpest pressure points right now. China has tightened rare-earth export controls ahead of the meeting, and the U.S. has moved to diversify supply through new critical-minerals deals with partners like Australia. Ceasefires are also part of the agenda—soft-power signalling where both sides want to look like peacemakers. I think that’s probably accurate: one side tends to be blunt, the other subtle—but neither is especially trusted.
Tsukerman: It’s not only about trust; it’s about leverage. Beijing often gains influence through lending and infrastructure deals under the Belt and Road Initiative. The popular “debt-trap diplomacy” narrative—usually illustrated by Sri Lanka’s Hambantota Port—is debated: the 2017 arrangement was a 99-year lease and did not transfer state ownership or forgive debt. Scholars argue evidence of a deliberate “trap” is mixed, though concerns about leverage are real. Claims about a criminal “Qi Group” acting as an intermediary for the PRC to defraud Asian economies are not substantiated in reliable sources; absent verification, we should set that aside.
Jacobsen: In other news, the Pope publicly lamented U.S.–Canada difficulties after President Trump ended trade talks, calling the situation “great difficulties” between two historically close allies. Why did Trump actually end the negotiations with Canada? The immediate trigger cited in coverage was political friction around messaging and tariffs; in any event, the bigger context is a hardline posture on trade and a reset of supply chains.
Tsukerman: On Ronald Reagan: the ad-history point often gets mangled. Reagan’s 1980 campaign used the slogan “Let’s Make America Great Again.” Trump later popularized “Make America Great Again”; the phrasing is closely related but not identical. Reagan’s speeches and policies broadly favoured free trade while criticizing unfair practices such as dumping or IP theft; he was not a champion of broad protectionist tariffs. That part stands.
The fact that Trump and the Reagan Foundation are now misrepresenting what that ad contained—and discouraging people from listening to Reagan’s original address in full—is both dishonest and politically revealing. To see that the ad is not actually deceptive in any way indicates that, first, they don’t want people to know what was in the original speech, because many people don’t understand basic history. Second, we have to remember what happened when Reagan made that statement. Trump took out an ad attacking Reagan’s position back in the day.
Trump was pro-tariff, and he basically tried to undercut Reagan specifically because of that position. More importantly, we have to remember that Pat Buchanan actually resigned and was on record attacking Reagan’s anti-tariff stance. If you look at some of the MAGA figures around Trump today, their positions on many issues—not just tariffs—are nearly identical to Buchanan’s. Trump is trying to disguise the fact that his movement is, in essence, neo-Buchananite. They’re presenting themselves as something new and original, but in reality, it’s a recycling of old, discarded ideas that were unpopular because they were anti-growth and didn’t work.
That’s why Buchanan never represented a majority and was never a serious presidential contender. His following was much smaller than Reagan’s original movement. It was Reagan who was the genuine populist—he was popular. Buchanan never was.
Trump has to mislead people about Reagan’s positions and his own to make his narrative work. He doesn’t want people to know the real history or to agree with Reagan, which is why he distracts them from revisiting the original. He’s also deeply insecure, because if people understood what Reagan actually said, they’d see why Trump’s protectionist position failed then and why it’s failing economically now. They’d also recognize that Trump likely cut off negotiations with Canada because he realized that, if they continued, the Canadian ad could completely undermine his entire position—and Canada would emerge stronger from those negotiations. People would literally side with Canada. That, I think, is the reason for this whole incident. Unfortunately, few are looking past the headlines.
Jacobsen: Changing gears, I didn’t know this: Thailand’s Queen Mother, Sirikit, an influential style icon, has died at age 93. I don’t know the average life expectancy there—it’s certainly lower than Japan’s—but 93 is remarkable. She was a distinguished, long-time figure in fashion and culture, instrumental in revitalizing the Thai silk industry. She brought, quote, “glamour and elegance” to the post-war revival of the country’s monarchy. She suffered a stroke in 2012 and has been hospitalized since 2019. So, she battled severe health issues for about a decade. A sad loss of a distinguished woman of her time. Any thoughts?
Tsukerman: Obviously, she had a vibrant and accomplished life. I particularly admire women of her generation, because even if she came from a wealthy royal family and enjoyed its privileges, it was still difficult decades ago in Asia for a woman to achieve that much. Frankly, it’s not easy for anyone—let alone a woman in a traditional society—to carve out a public legacy like hers.
Actually accomplishing anything, even with all the advantages in the world, still requires talent, grit, perseverance, imagination, and creativity. You have to do things the right way and inspire people. If your product is terrible, no matter how much PR you put into it, people aren’t going to buy it—unless you’re inspiring in some way. In that case, they might still buy it because of you, but even then, you have to be admirable in the first place. I definitely give her credit for that. Politically, of course, she had less influence than others who held absolute power.
Thailand has a long, uneasy history of elites competing for control, and sometimes clashing with neighbouring countries. There have been repressive tactics and episodes of upheaval, particularly during the transition to the new king. Things seem to have stabilized somewhat, though difficulties persist, as we’re seeing in nearby Cambodia. Still, I hope that young people in Thailand will draw inspiration from visionaries who sought to improve their country economically and culturally, rather than those who pursued power for its own sake. That’s what should inspire the next generation.
Jacobsen: This next story hits close to home. Kyiv and its allies have argued that frozen Russian assets—which have been discussed widely in the news—should be used quickly to aid Ukraine. That’s especially urgent now, with winter setting in and civilian infrastructure under attack, particularly energy systems for heating and cooking. President Zelensky, almost matter-of-factly, has said that Ukraine will need to develop domestic production of air defence systems. About 60 percent of Ukraine’s weapons are now produced domestically, but air defence systems and missiles still rely heavily on Western allies.
Zelensky has also called for a “coalition of the willing” to provide long-range strike weapons. There’s an asymmetry in the conflict: Ukraine is targeting primarily military sites and, occasionally, energy infrastructure such as oil depots, while Russian forces under the Kremlin and President Putin are targeting not only military sites but also civilian infrastructure and cultural and religious landmarks. That’s a stark contrast like the strikes.
Tsukerman: Regarding energy, energy is the key economic factor here. It’s good that the U.S. finally sanctioned two of Russia’s largest oil companies. Frankly, I have no idea what took so long or why President Biden delayed it. If he had done it earlier, we could already be in a different position. I doubt Trump would have lifted those sanctions had they been in place; he might have dragged his feet, but he probably would have let them stand. It was a strategic mistake not to act sooner.
Russia is clearly suffering significant economic damage. There are reports of gas shortages and even hunger in peripheral regions like Siberia. The more pressure the U.S. and its allies put on Russia’s energy sector, the quicker Russia will run short of funds for its war effort. Even if they divert everything toward the military, it will still be challenging to sustain. That kind of economic stress will create profound internal discontent.
Europe is also finally doing the right thing with the nineteenth package of sanctions. Admittedly, Germany has been something of a spoiler by asking the U.S. to exempt German-run, Russian-owned companies from certain sanctions, which undermines the goal of a unified stance. It’s frustrating. I wish they would stop doing that. It’s also concerning that some of these energy sanctions won’t take full effect until 2027 or 2028, giving Russia another 2 to 3 years to keep funding the war effort.
Doing what needs to be done for European sales will be harder now with U.S. sanctions, but it will still happen. It’s also unclear what the Gulf states will do: OPEC+ has not frozen Russia out—in fact, Saudi–Russian cooperation continues, including plans for joint business forums and talks on energy projects.
The effectiveness of announced U.S. sanctions will depend on enforcement and on whether the U.S. pressures its allies. It made little sense to put high tariffs on India while not sanctioning some Russian producers; sanctioning buyers but not producers risks circumvention and gives importing countries incentives to increase purchases because Russian oil is being sold at a deep discount. Recent U.S. actions, however, have targeted Russia’s largest oil firms.
We will definitely see sanction-busting and shadow fleets—some of that is already visible. Some Chinese companies have announced curbs on Russian oil transactions, which would be a notable blow to Moscow if sustained, since China has been a major buyer of Russian crude in recent months.
If the U.S. wants sanctions to work, it must press broadly, not only target a few countries for unrelated political reasons. Otherwise, Russia will keep finding ways to evade the new framework.
On the second issue—Zelensky’s comments about domestic air-defence production—the reality is that some Western-supplied systems (for example, Patriots) aren’t expected from Poland or other partners until later; waiting until spring may be too late because Russia could press offensives in winter. Recent reporting indicates that Ukraine and the U.S. are preparing contracts for additional Patriots, but delivery timelines remain crucial.
Ukraine needs air defences now; ideally, allies would help with components, designs, and co-production rather than just promising complete systems that won’t arrive for years. Europe is short on many of these systems, and some ordered equipment won’t be available for at least 2 to 3 years. Domestic variants would be better tailored to battlefield needs and wouldn’t be subject to import delays or export bans. At the same time, developing domestic systems is hard—production capacity is limited, and factories are vulnerable to strikes—so meaningful co-production or rapid components support from allies is essential.
There’s been talk of Tomahawks and other deep-strike systems. The administration has signalled openness to providing long-range missiles under certain circumstances. However, political leaders, including President Trump, have at times publicly expressed reservations, while also suggesting they might approve transfers if the war continues or if conditions are met. That ambiguity shapes Kyiv’s calculus and Western debates about escalation risk.
Training, logistics, and command-and-control are nontrivial concerns—Tomahawks and comparable systems require skilled crews and integration into targeting frameworks—but if the political decision is made and proper training and safeguards are established, they could change strategic dynamics.
I really think he’s still holding out for some possibility of a breakthrough with Putin, despite having called off—or semi–called off—the Budapest summit. There’s also a lot of pressure from the hawks in the Pentagon and other circles not to agree to the Tomahawk sale. Some, like Colby, oppose it for ideological reasons rather than strategic ones. He’s more hardline than Hegseth, who seems more concerned with internal reforms at the Department of Defence.
The reality is that Ukraine cannot count on Tomahawks arriving anytime soon, and the Flamingo systems are insufficient. There are other long-range weapons available, but it’s not only Trump blocking them—some European countries have also prevented their transfer. The mystery is who exactly, and why. Trump made an interesting comment when the Wall Street Journal reported that he had lifted the ban on the use of long-range weapons; he then called it “fake news,” insisting that the U.S. had nothing to do with those systems. That statement makes it clear that no American weapons are involved in this particular process, and that another party is calling the shots.
If the U.S. hasn’t sold Tomahawks, then the weapons in question must be something else. It’s not the HIMARS—Ukraine has used those extensively. So these other long-range systems must be blocked by other countries, though it’s still unclear which ones or why they’re hesitating.
Jacobsen: This next story is from Lagos. Nigerian President Bola Tinubu has appointed new service chiefs in what’s being called a sweeping overhaul of the military leadership. It’s described as an attempt to confront the country’s multiple security crises—Islamist insurgencies in the northeast, armed banditry in the northwest, and separatist unrest in the southeast.
Tsukerman: The problems in Nigeria’s security apparatus are deeply entrenched. Many of these officials have already held senior posts while these crises have persisted. None of the issues are new—they’ve only worsened over time, while governance remains weak.
Some of the separatist movements involve Christian communities that allege systemic discrimination by the federal government. Many live in regions rich in oil and gas and feel those resources have been expropriated and redistributed to government cronies and to Muslim-majority areas without fair benefit to local populations. That’s a legitimate grievance. Meanwhile, the state has failed to effectively counter Boko Haram and related extremist groups due to corruption, poor coordination, and a lack of resources.
The U.S. has provided security funding in the past, and the Gulf states have also offered support, but neither effort has produced lasting improvements. Large parts of the country remain disaffected and vulnerable to infiltration. Beyond sectarian, tribal, and religious tensions, Nigeria also faces porous borders and limited capacity to secure them—especially given instability in neighbouring states that are even less pro-Western.
That is why this reshuffle will not amount to a serious solution. It is like trying to use a bandage to cover a gaping wound. Nigeria needs a far more comprehensive reassessment of priorities and a concrete, long-term plan to combat these entrenched problems. The entire structure of governance and security needs reform at a foundational level. We will not see that anytime soon.
Jacobsen: The last story comes from Argentina—protesters against pension cuts. Pensioners who worked all their lives are finding themselves unable to maintain a basic standard of living.
Tsukerman: Argentina’s financial issues are deep-rooted and challenging to solve. The government has focused on reducing the fiscal deficit, which has meant cutting back on entitlement programs. Admittedly, some of those programs were inefficient and drained the economy without improving lives, but austerity has made things more complicated for ordinary citizens.
About 30 percent of the population is reportedly not fully engaged in the labour force—not due to illness or disability, but because decades of far-left economic policies have created a culture of dependency on social assistance. That has shrunk the pool of available funds for genuine pensions, making it difficult to sustain support for older citizens who need it most.
Balancing the budget and reining in inflation are necessary goals, but the social dimension is equally urgent. Without significant investment and competent management, these structural issues will persist. Argentina needs a partnership among the government, private investors, NGOs, and community and religious organizations to supplement state efforts. The government should be the floor, not the ceiling, of social support.
When the government tries to be the sole provider, corruption and inefficiency thrive. Argentina has already seen this—decades of clientelism, theft, and the erosion of the middle class. Without a strong middle class, there is no sustainable tax base, and without that, reform collapses into a cycle of dependency and inflation.
Returning to a stable, productive middle ground will be tough. The $40 billion swap line the U.S. is providing may not be enough, but it could help attract investors, NGOs, and development organizations interested in building a more self-sufficient and opportunity-driven economy—especially for younger Argentinians.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Irina.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/26
William Dempsey, LICSW, is a Boston-based clinical social worker and LGBTQ+ mental-health advocate. He founded Heads Held High Counselling, a virtual, gender-affirming group practice serving Massachusetts and Illinois, where he and his team support clients navigating anxiety, depression, trauma, ADHD, and gender dysphoria. Clinically, Dempsey integrates EMDR, CBT, IFS, and expressive modalities, with a focus on accessible, equity-minded care. Beyond the clinic, he serves on the board of Drag Story Hour, helping expand inclusive literacy programming and resisting censorship pressures. His public scholarship and media appearances foreground compassionate, evidence-based practice and the lived realities of queer communities across North America.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen interviews Dempsey on a dense week for LGBTQ rights. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to revisit Section 230, leaving Grindr shielded in a case involving a rape of a 15-year-old, raising platform, legal, and victim concerns. They parse polling showing broadening support for banning conversion therapy and the cultural shift it signals. Pride’s dual role as protest and celebration is defended. A Guardian report on abuses at a Louisiana ICE facility highlights compounded harms for queer and trans migrants. Dempsey warns of fear, legislative backlash—especially in Texas—and hypocrisy, urging vigilance, community solidarity, and rights-centered policy now.
Interview conducted October 15, 2025.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Once more, we are here again. The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear a challenge to federal protections for tech platforms based on a case involving Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. It refused an opportunity to revisit the broad legal immunity of tech companies for content hosted on their platforms. This happened on Tuesday. It was based on an appeal in a lawsuit against Grindr from a male plaintiff who was raped at age 15 by an adult man who matched with him via the app. The lower court’s ruling was upheld, dismissing the lawsuit seeking monetary damages against Los Angeles–based Grindr because the company was protected from liability under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. This case involves several elements—from the company and app perspective, the legal perspective, and, of course, the victim’s perspective, who was denied some form of justice. What are your overall thoughts on that and the likely social fallout?
William Dempsey: I’m not aware of the app’s requirements. It is 18+, but this raises a broader issue about parental guidance regarding what children are doing online. While Grindr was designed to be a dating app, in practice, it is not—it is a hookup app. If you are 15, you should not be on it to begin with. That is not to suggest any victim-blaming. The adult still went there and chose to engage, consensually or not, with a 15-year-old. There have been more stories like this emerging—teens who have either consensually or non-consensually had sex with adults from the app. It highlights a broader issue of who initially has access to these platforms.
Jacobsen: The topic of conversion therapy is critical. I may need to refer to more ideologically biased sources, whether left or right, if necessary. There have been some significant follow-ups on this issue. A recent poll measured public opinion on conversion therapy—specifically, whether it should be banned. This follows a U.S. Supreme Court case involving a Christian counsellor, Brian Tingley, who argued that Washington State’s ban on conversion therapy for minors violated his First Amendment rights.
The Court declined to hear the case. The poll didn’t specify the type of practice as it relates to gender identity, but it revealed a noticeable partisan divide. Seventy-five percent of Democrats believe conversion therapy should be banned, along with 55 percent of independents and 45 percent of Republicans. The margin of error was approximately 3.5 percent. Even so, a significant portion of Republicans are against the practice and support banning it. What does this suggest to you about how public attitudes have shifted over the past several decades?
Dempsey: I think it’s not only indicative of, hopefully, a cultural shift, but also of light being shed on what conversion therapy actually is in practice—and that people are beginning to understand it. Even those who might agree with it as a theory, or with its intended purpose, don’t agree with the idea of, for example, electrocuting children. That’s just torture. While I would hope it’s indicative mainly of a cultural shift, part of my pessimism—call it practicality if you will—is that it’s more about the nature of how the change is happening rather than what it represents.
But regardless, it’s a sign of progress, and hopefully one that continues in that direction. I think, as we discussed last time, it’s also indicative of a broader shift among conservative parties, moving away from having a negative view of sexual diversity—of people who aren’t heterosexual—and more toward focusing on gender diversity, with a greater backlash there. And while one might consider conversion therapy as a method for, quote-unquote, turning people cis, I haven’t heard of that. So I think this also shows a cultural shift away from homophobic rhetoric in legislation and more of a pushback against gender diversity.
Jacobsen: It’s important to reiterate that recently the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Medical Association have all stated that conversion therapy is pseudoscientific, baseless, and harmful. “Harmful,” particularly in the context of the electrocution example, is almost a euphemism. In Atlanta, Georgia—which I’ve been to—I had my first grits at a Waffle House. That was great. The full meal costs as much as a venti coffee at the Starbucks across the park.
There are very distinct cultures in Atlanta. There was an Atlanta Pride Festival on October 11, alongside the annual Transgender Rights March in the city’s Midtown. It looks like this was—ah, I see what happened. Sometimes when people use AI-generated captions to summarize photos, they produce strange summary symbols and errors. That’s what happened with Reuters Connect. Anyway, advocates marched during the Pride Festival. Thoughts? In other words, what is the social importance of community events like this, where people come together publicly during festivals of this nature?
Dempsey: I could go on a whole soapbox about this. In general, we must continue to have representations of things like Pride—to remember that there’s still progress to be made. Pride started as a protest for a reason. Until the community has equal rights—equal compared to its cisgender, heterosexual, and other counterparts—there’s still a need for protest. Equally, there’s value in celebrating and embracing the aspects of Pride that embody that. There has been considerable debate around whether Pride should be celebratory, protest-oriented, or both. I think it should be both.
It’s equally important, in any movement toward equality, to celebrate the wins along the way and not get lost in the fight. And, to that point, it’s also important not to get lost in the party and to remember there’s still work to be done. In many communities—the queer community being no exception—there are subdivisions that, once certain rights are secured, tend to pull the ladder up behind them, proverbially speaking. I’ve personally seen that—not as a generalization, but fairly often—with some gay men who say, “We have marriage equality, so we don’t need to worry about trans rights.” That’s just one example.
It’s essential to continue having spaces for community gathering and activism, especially in the current political climate, where many people in the queer community feel that their rights are under attack. It’s valuable to have these events to physically see how many people are either part of the community or allies of it. It serves as a reminder of collective action and the power of numbers, because it can feel isolating and hopeless for many people.
Jacobsen: The Guardian reported this morning that at the South Louisiana ICE Processing Center in Basile, detainees were forced into hard labour, sexually assaulted, and stalked by an assistant warden. Queer and trans immigrants at the detention facility also faced medical neglect. They were repeatedly ignored or faced retaliation for speaking out. They were forced to perform manual labour for as little as one dollar per day. Mario Garcia Valenzuela stated, “I was treated worse than an animal… we don’t deserve to be treated like this.” Sarah Decker, a senior staff attorney with Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights, said, “This was a sadistic late-night work program… it was designed to target vulnerable trans men or masculine-presenting LGBTQ people who were coerced into participating.” There’s a long list of similar accounts. When people are dehumanized like this, coming from already marginalized identities, how does that impact their sense of security in the world moving forward?
When people are dehumanized like this—immigrants in the United States at a tense time for immigration—and they’re coming from minority identities already, whether from a human rights standpoint or a moral one, their rights are being violated. We’re talking about medical neglect, punishment and retaliation for speaking out, sexual assault, and forced labour late at night for as little as a dollar a day. Even in the best-case scenario, they get out soon. How does that affect their sense of safety and security in the world and their ability to trust society?
Dempsey: It certainly instills much fear in people, particularly among the communities directly affected by this kind of violence. It also creates fear in other marginalized communities that have spent the last century fighting for their rights. In the queer community, for example, there’s growing fear as more anti-trans legislation emerges that marriage equality could be overturned—which, in the scope of our nation’s history, wasn’t that long ago. I’ve even had conversations with others about how, for instance, the 19th Amendment was only ratified a century ago. Many people worry that ignoring or revoking rights is a slippery slope—that it could snowball into a larger rollback of freedoms.
So there’s much fear. What I’m saying, in part, is that many people are left asking: if it can happen to them, what’s stopping it from happening to me? Especially as immigrants have become the focal point of this administration’s hostility—my own word choice—and as both immigrants and citizens are being removed from the country, people are wondering: when they’re gone, who’s next? Many of the individuals inflicting this violence are doing so out of internal anger they feel compelled to express. And when they no longer have someone to target, they’ll find someone else. So, to come back to your question, it’s instilling a profound and understandable fear in people.
Jacobsen: If people change laws and don’t care—versus those who hate a group of people and therefore change the law to remove their rights, restrict them, or reduce them—there are three different frames there. Which is psychologically more concerning? The person who hates and acts on it, or the person who does it completely indifferently, holding dehumanization in their mind without emotion?
Dempsey: That’s a great question. I’m not certain, but I imagine they’re viewed similarly. Communities tend to focus more on the impact of the action rather than the motivation behind it.
Jacobsen: The ACLU has been tracking LGBTQ rights across U.S. state legislatures for 2025. So far, there have been 616 anti-LBGTQ bills introduced, according to the ACLU’s tracking. That number hasn’t been updated this month—it was last updated on September 19, 2025—and today is October 16. Some of the worst states by colour coding appear to be Texas and Montana, though the map uses the same colour once states hit 16 or more bills. Texas alone has 97—nearly one-sixth of the total number of anti-LBGTQ bills in the United States.
Many other states are contributing significantly as well. I doubt prior years looked this bad. Also, to your earlier point, I’m aware that former President Barack Obama was initially not in favour of marriage equality—he once said he believed marriage was between one man and one woman. So it raises the question of whether his later support for marriage equality was a principled evolution or simply political convenience, a move by a liberal intellectual. That’s an open question. But in the current period, these bills are alarming. What are your thoughts, particularly on Texas being by far the leader in this?
Dempsey: If you talk to most people in the queer community, there’s a long history of precisely that kind of behaviour, and it’s not limited to Obama. There’s a long-standing pattern of people saying one thing, then changing their stance later, which raises the question of whether people can change and, if they can, how to distinguish between genuine belief and political convenience. That’s why I think most of the community doesn’t care whether someone “buys what they’re selling.”
We care about getting the rights—we just want the damn rights. Whether someone agrees personally or not, we want the rights. Texas doesn’t surprise me. It’s historically—and in recent times—a very conservative state with deeply rooted conservative views. It’s also worth noting that while most studies focus on intimate partner violence, the same psychological principle applies: studies are showing that internalized homophobia correlates pretty strongly with intimate partner violence.
On a more humorous note, there have been multiple Republican conventions where Grindr has crashed because of the number of “DL” profiles—men living on the down low. It’s not beyond us. It’s even reached a point where Grindr themselves have threatened to release the information of Republican legislators if they continue on this warpath, essentially saying they’ll be outed. So it’s become pretty obvious what’s going on. We’ve all known this for decades, but now it’s more visible thanks to the internet.
Jacobsen: Comedy is prophetic.
Dempsey: Especially in politics. It really speaks to a larger issue in states like Texas, where there’s a strong correlation between religious values and conservatism, and how that ties directly into the rhetoric that “queer is bad.” Because many of these individuals don’t feel safe being who they are—this is my own hypothesis—they instead enact legislation that reflects their internal struggles: suppress, deny, and wish it away so it no longer exists. There’s a clear parallel between that internal repression and what they’re trying to do externally to the community, whether in part or as a whole.
Jacobsen: Who was that gentleman who headed one of the major anti-gay—or maybe pro-conversion therapy—organizations? Remember, he was featured in that documentary? He was a prominent Christian figure, held up as a success story of “it worked, I’m no longer gay.” He’s probably in his fifties or sixties now. Eventually, the façade fell apart after decades.
Dempsey: Pray Away was the name of the documentary. It focused on evangelical movements, although I’m unsure if it was exclusive to them.
Jacobsen (2021) was produced by Jason Blum, Ryan Murphy, and Christine Salgas. It focused on ex-gay leaders. Michael Bussee was the person. He was in the documentary and talked about how his sexual orientation never changed as a result of any of those practices. He co-founded Exodus International back in 1976. He later left the organization, came out as gay, and publicly condemned the movement he helped create. What a mind-bending experience that must have been.
Dempsey: You’ll also see the reverse happen. Especially in the trans community—not a large percentage, but a noticeable number of people—some “detransition” after finding religion, saying they’ve “repented” or “regretted their sins.” The conservative movement loves to elevate these people—maybe “totem” isn’t the right word, but they’re definitely put on a pedestal.
Jacobsen: They’re given a platform, right? They appear on shows with the Carlsons or Lila Roses of the world, saying things like, “As a former atheist,” or, “As a former gay,” or, “As a former trans person.” There’s always a “former.” Sometimes even “former Satanist.”
Dempsey: Or my favourite—Milo Yiannopoulos.
Jacobsen: Oh, yeah. He was just a firecracker and then gone.
Dempsey: Well, he was still active when I was living in Boston during the Straight Pride parade.
Jacobsen: Oh, that’s right! There was that.
Dempsey: Yep, he was their Grand Marshal.
Jacobsen: Why is it called a Grand Marshal? That sounds almost Confederate.
Dempsey: It probably is. Many American traditions still have their roots in Confederate heritage.
Jacobsen: Okay, I think we’re out of time now.
Dempsey: Yeah, I think so.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/26
Jovana Trninic is a Serbian interlocutor and advocate focusing on clergy-related abuse and institutional accountability within the Serbian Orthodox context. After reporting sexual misconduct by a priest and encountering evasion from church authorities, she turned to evidence-based healing, psychotherapy, and communities such as Prosopon Healing. Trninic emphasizes critical thinking over magical thinking, transparency through survivor databases, and legal literacy for victims. Her perspective integrates skepticism, human rights, and lived experience, arguing that reform must involve believers and secular allies to prevent recurring harm.
In this interview with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Trninic discusses clergy-perpetrated abuse and the role of the Serbian Orthodox Church. She recounts reporting a priest Blasko Paraklis for sexual misconduct, facing institutional evasion, including a bishop Maxim office mediating by email but imposing no consequences. Trninic advocates for critical thinking, utilizing databases like Prosopon Healing, promoting legal literacy, and employing evidence-based therapy to enhance public transparency, prevention, and institutional reform.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today we’re here with Jovana Trninic from Serbia. We’ve known each other peripherally. Anyway, we’re talking about a topic I’ve been learning more about: clergy-perpetrated abuse, or clergy-related abuse more broadly. After speaking with institutional leaders, researchers, and survivors, I want to ask: What is the state of this in Serbia? And what is the role of the Orthodox Church?
Jovana Trninic: Orthodox Christianity is the main religion in Serbia and Serbian Orthodox Church plays the main part in the spiritual and cultural life of Serbians.
Jacobsen: How do people see their Orthodoxy?
Jovana: For Serbians Orthodoxy is closely tied with cultural, historical and national identity.
Jacobsen: When they think of their identity within Orthodoxy, what ideas and feelings come to mind? In America people say: “Jesus is my lord and saviour”. Is it similar here?
Jovana: Yes, it’s similar with more emphasis on the concept of “Svetoslavlje”. Svetosavlje encompassing the ideology, spiritual tradition and national character derived from the life and teachings of St. Sava the first Serbian Orthodox Archbishop.
Jacobsen: Are Serbians generally highly religious, or more like North Americans or Europeans, where religion is a part of life but not life itself?
Trninic: In general I would say Serbians are more traditional then religious.
Jacobsen: What do you mean?
Trninic: Some traditions are tied to the church. For example, we have Slava. Each family has their own patron saint. We celebrate Slava with a cake(bread) blessed by a priest, who comes to the house for the ceremony or parishioners bring cake(bread) to the church. It’s a tradition connected with religion, but for most people, it’s more about tradition. Only a minority strictly follow religious rules.
Jacobsen: That’s a fair point. In my experience interviewing many people, those who strongly claim a religious faith, and even those who claim to have rejected it, often haven’t read the holy text.
Trninic: It’s personal matter and free will whether someone will be a believer or not.
Jacobsen: When you went through Orthodoxy—community, maybe Sunday school—what lessons were emphasized? Not every Christian denomination emphasizes the same traditions. Sometimes they teach the same things, but rank them differently. What stories or ethics are highlighted? Beyond the core belief that Jesus rose from the dead, which is non-negotiable for Christianity, the same way the Quran is non-negotiable in Islam.
Trninic: Serbian Orthodox Christian Church utilizes both the Old Testament and the New Testament as Holy Scripture viewing the Old Testament as a preparation for Christ’s coming with emphasis on New Testament. Key practices include Divine Liturgy and the Seven Sacraments Mysteries (Holy Baptism, Holy Chrismation, Holy Communion, Holy Confession, Holy Matrimony, Holy Ordination and Holy Unction.)
Jacobsen: An essential point in all of this is community and hierarchy. Now, key to the issue of clergy-perpetrated abuse: if someone were to question these fundamental claims, or even say they no longer believe, how would the community respond? Would it be considered inappropriate? Would questioning be welcomed or rejected?
Trninic: Speaking from my own experience, and from what I see around me, questioning clergy authority is considered highly inappropriate and rejected. When I wanted to speak up about what had happened to me in Orthodox Christian community in terms of warning and preventing sexual misconduct from happening to other females, a female friend who introduced me to the faith was extremely against that action. I asked her: “Why should I stay silent? This is not my shame.” This is the shame of clergy man. He can harm another person if he is not held accountable for his wrongdoing. She told me this: “Yes, but you never know if he repented”. This statement led me to the conclusion that the Sacrament of confession in this case confession (repentance) can be misused in perpetuating the ongoing sexual misconduct cycle in silence. She also told me this: “We have to be silent, this is how we keep our faith to not crumble down”.
Another thing, she was the first person I came forward and told her in detail about everything that happened to me that night. Her first response was this: “If any other female told me the same thing the first thing I would ask her is what did you do to provoke him. But because I know you, I believe you”.
When I called another friend to raise a red flag on this incident and prevent it from potentially happening to her I got another bizarre response. “Because priests are by default close to God, they are also more attacked by demons”. So this is how she justified his wrongdoing. This phenomenon is called “clericalism” when people think priests/clergy are on a higher level of spirituality than others. I was also stuck in this trap for some period of time.
When I showed an inappropriate and disturbing text message I had received from that priest to my other friend, her response was this: “This is why I always pay attention to how to communicate with the priest”. Speaking of that, I want to clarify some things here which I think many religious people do not understand. And that is: “It is not my responsibility to teach priests how to communicate”.
Jacobsen: When you come forward with a complaint, and you’re told it’s untrue without grounds, how does that feel?
Trninic: That leads to feelings of frustration, anger and invalidation, but it also leads to clarity of the reality taking the place of the truth. Actually, this experience helped me see things crystal clear and I will hold on to this truth no matter what.
Jacobsen: Are there biblical parables—or passages—you know of, as a Christian, that support women who have been mistreated?
Trninic: Yes. One example is rape of Tamar.
Jacobsen: Has this shaken your faith?
Trninic: To some degree yes. I still believe in God, but sometimes I have a feeling I have attacked God. This is the paradox. I have been pushed to that point to defend the truth and myself by speaking up against those who represent God on Earth.
Jacobsen: In your case, what was the individual failure—the crime? And what was the institutional failure of Serbian Orthodoxy? And, as an olive branch, what would have been a better response? Individually, the first failure is apparent: do not abuse. Institutionally, the reaction after the fact is more complicated.
Trninic: Well, according to the experts when it comes to clergy abuse and sexual misconduct Church is supposed to do few things.
- Launch an external investigation
- Remove the clergy who abused during investigation
- Provide money for victim to get counseling
- Provide mandatory counseling for clergy
- Defrock
In my situation none of these steps were done.
Speaking of individual failure, when I called the bishop’s office a woman who claimed to be a psychologist told me that the bishop was going to call me. But he never called, which spiked my anxiety. When I asked her next time why the bishop did not call me. Her response was this: “The Bishop doesn’t talk with regular people. He only talks with people inside of his circle who are educated in theology.”
When I asked her if other people had complained about the same priest, she said she wasn’t allowed to give me that information. Based on that answer, is what concerns me—that I may not be the only one.
Jacobsen: Are you still part of the community?
Trninic: To be honest, from this point of view I do not wish to be part of that community.
Jacobsen: How long has it been since the original incident?
Trninic: It happened in 2022.
Jacobsen: Compared to your anxiety and stress then, how do you feel now?
Trninic: I still feel disoriented and unsafe and carry a high level of anxiety. There has been progress—I’ve improved with therapy and support from psychiatrist psychologists and psychotherapists.
Jacobsen: What advice has helped you that could also help others as they begin their own journey of healing after victimization?
Trninic: Oh my God, there is so much to say. Ok. First I want to tell this to every survivor: “If you have ever continuously felt neglected, criticized, rejected, abandoned, for speaking the truth, if your accomplishments were minimized, if you have been betrayed by those who were supposed to protect you and cherish you, if you have been blamed by those people that something was wrong with you, it’s time for you to wake up and claim your power. Book “It’s not you” by dr. Ramani Durvasula can be your starting point. Also the book “Blind to betrayal” by dr Jennifer Freyd is crucial for healing. For survivors who have been part of the cult, I highly recommend the book “Take back your life” by Janja Lalich. Finding the right trauma informed psychologist who understands relational trauma and Complex- PTSD is the most important part of your healing journey. For the Christian Orthodox Clergy abuse survivors The Prosopon Healing website is crucial. They help with education, including how to recognize abuse in early stages. Some of the books I have recommended are on their website as well.
The problem with some religious people in general is they often rely on magical thinking instead of critical reasoning.
Jacobsen: What is magical thinking in this context?
Trninic: Magical thinking can mean many things. For example, believing that just by touching the bishop’s robe can create some blessings or miracles in your life is magical thinking. People often think that if they perform certain practices, their problems will go away, and oftentimes they are led by Church authorities into that thinking.
Jacobsen: So, better education in critical thinking could help prevent abuse?
Trninic: I think critical thinking is important but can not prevent abuse itself. It is helpful in later stages after recognizing the abuse. It is important not to be obedient to authority which does not allow it to be questioned. We were abused because we trusted those people. What can prevent abuse in my opinion and which is the stand point from Prosopon Healing are these three things:
- Education is important so people are aware of the abuse and they are not shocked when it happens
- Hold perpetrators accountable
- The most important thing is to hold enablers accountable. Enablers are individuals who allow perpetrators to exist in the system and exploit the system.
Jacobsen: Do you know other women in Serbia who had similar experiences?
Trninic: I do not know anybody personally.
Jacobsen: Is there a perception that abuse is primarily a Catholic problem, not an Orthodox one?
Trninic: Yes. In our Orthodox community, people say, “That happens to Catholics, not us.” Or they claim that if it happens in Orthodoxy, it’s rare. They argue it happens in Catholicism because priests aren’t allowed to marry, which is false. Many abuse cases involve married clergy.
Jacobsen: What resources have helped you most?
Trninic: All books I have mentioned above. Also there are other books like:
“C-PTSD from Surviving to Thriving” by Pete Walker.
“Trauma and Recovery” by Judith Herman
“Believing Me” Dr. Ingrid Clayton
Jacobsen: Do you feel more secure in your sense of self now?
Trninic: Yes.
Jacobsen: Many abuse cases are by married men, including married clergy.
Trninic: I am aware of that now.
Jacobsen: In American evangelical circles, the argument is that prominent pastors are held to a higher standard. Yet in Serbian Orthodoxy, based on your case, an individual of higher stature is instead given a supernatural excuse—that demons attacked him, causing him to commit this crime. That lets him evade personal accountability, followed by an institutional cover-up, and then, in your case, betrayal by a close associate. You can see how these dynamics play out. They’re clearer to me now. They don’t surprise me, but they are deeply unethical and, in some cases, explicitly criminal, as shown in court cases. Do I have both the big picture and the details right?
Trninic: Yes.
Jacobsen: I don’t believe in the supernatural; I see no evidence for it. Many believers do, even victims. But regardless of whether it’s real, it’s used to shift accountability away from the clergy. So the supernatural is used as a shield to deflect responsibility.
Trninic: Yes, that’s how I see it as well.
Jacobsen: What has helped you feel safer—not entirely secure, but safer—compared to those moments of distress and anxiety?
Trninic: Speaking with dr. Hermina Nedelescu and my psychotherapists have helped me a lot, education and Prosopon healing website and their community.
Jacobsen: What do you think is the importance of the Orthodox abuse database?
Trninic: The database from Prosopon Healing is essential because it consolidates all information in one place—a clearinghouse where individuals can share notes and build an accurate picture of the extent of abuse. That way, the numbers aren’t underreported or exaggerated. You can’t just say there are 100,000 victims, but you can show a distinct number, plus estimates for unknown cases.
Jacobsen: Most clergy don’t abuse—that’s important to state explicitly.
Trninic: Really? I’m in shock. Now I think everyone is abusing.
Jacobsen: I mean, it’s like most crimes: a small number of people commit them repeatedly. In North America, there’s a term—recidivism. It describes people who commit the same crime over and over. Why does an arsonist commit arson? Because he’s an arsonist. Why does an abuser abuse? Because he’s an abuser. I don’t want to make an essentialist argument, but it’s a pattern of psychology and behaviour that repeats.
That’s why I’d argue it’s likely a minority of clergy who abuse, and we can’t paint all clergy with that brush. It’s essential to involve innocent clergy, regular believers, and the broader public in reform efforts. We see abuse in many domains—gymnastics, Hollywood, corporate settings, and academia. Men and women can be victims in different ways. The real issue is identifying effective reforms and implementing them.
Trninic: Yes, but I don’t agree with one point. If clergy or congregants see another clergy who is abusing others and they stay silent, they’re protecting the abuser. Silence in the face of evil is itself an abuse of power. My previous roommate and friend was the person who introduced me to that priest with the recommendation that he is the most spiritual among them. I feel betrayed by her as well. I had never imagined these things could have happened.
But from this point of view, I wish I had spoken more in public and been more vocal instead of remaining in silence. That is why I am speaking now and using truth and my story to empower other people first to wake up from cognitive dissonance, not to be blind and obedient to any authority, to recognize the abuse, return the shame to those that belong to and to speak up to prevent others from going through the same horror.
I want to share these statements from psychologist Beth Matenaer in the book “Take back you life” by Janja Lalich which helped me a lot and it might help other survivors:
A Survivor’s Promise
by Beth Matenaer
- No longer will I carry the shame that has enabled other people’s bad behavior. I decide. No more.
- No longer will I minimize the things I need to accommodate another person’s shortcomings. I decide. No more.
- No longer will I accept that I am responsible for any choices and actions other than my own. I decide. No more.
- No longer will I negotiate a version of the truth that denies my experiences to make others feel more comfortable. I decide. No more.
- No longer will I choose to value other people’s perception of me over my own knowledge of myself. I decide. No more.
- No longer will I allow fears of what I cannot control to hold me back from the things I know I can accomplish. I decide. No more.
- No longer will I compromise my own thoughts, feelings and ideas because they are different from yours. I decide. No more.
- No longer will I apologize for hoping, for loving, for believing, as they are my gift to this world.
I decide. No more. I promise.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Jovana.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/25
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 numerous feature films, web series, and music videos. JD has also appeared in various national TV 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, JD also led the spiritual-based film KATERI, which won the prestigious “Capex Dei” award at the Vatican in Rome. JD 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 JD’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.
In this interview with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Mata traces the intertwining of Tejano music and Catholic culture. He links the formation of the choir and European dance rhythms to Tejano’s keyboard-forward sound, and views Mass, chant, and performance as parallel rituals. Mata distinguishes artistic “possession”—the transport of music—from literal demonic possession, citing Ozzy Osbourne’s theatrics and his own commitment to sobriety. He notes church festivals, rosaries onstage, and priests offering blessings (and sometimes singing “Volver, Volver”) as lived connections. Above all, he champions responsibility in lyrics and conduct, framing Tejano as romantic, redemptive, communal, and spiritually luminous.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: You’re a practicing Catholic and have been a choir director for a Catholic church for about 25 years. There are deeper aspects of the Catholic faith that clearly matter to you. How do you build these more esoteric aspects of the faith into your Tejano music?
J.D. Mata: Catholic life and Tejano music have grown up together. I was one of the early Tejano artists and a practicing Catholic, so I’ll share the correlations I’ve seen—strictly from experience.
Here’s how I’ll start. When I formed my first Tejano band, I emphasized that a modern Tejano sound needed drums, guitar, bass, and keyboards or synthesizer. Synths and keyboards became prominent in Tejano during the 1970s La Onda Chicana era, as large orquesta-style bands replaced some accordion-and-horns textures with electronic keyboards. Later groups like Mazz cemented that keyboard-forward sound.
I’ve been a choir director for most of my life—60 now, and I’ve sung in choirs since I was 12. At 16, I directed my parish choir. A younger pianist asked to join; he had raw talent, so I brought him into the choir and, when I formed the band, onto keyboards. We’d rehearse the choir first, then the Tejano set after.
That’s where the association shows up: a lot of Tejano musicians cut their teeth in Catholic church choirs. Catholicism is culturally predominant in many Tejano and Mexican communities, and the repertoire itself reflects the same European—mainly German, Czech, and Polish—dance-music DNA, particularly polka rhythms, that shaped conjunto and Tejano.
For context, “Tejano” originally referred to Texans of Mexican descent. As a music label, it gained broader currency in the late 20th century alongside the rise of orquesta Tejana and La Onda Chicana.
Jacobsen: Which was the case with you—your first gig was playing in church. Can you share your story of how you became a musician through the Catholic Church?
Mata: My story begins in the seventh or maybe sixth grade, during my CCD class—what many people now call religious education. One of the nuns came into class and said, “JD, can we speak to you? You need to come with us.” I thought, What did I do wrong? I loved CCD, and I did really well in it.
She brought me to her office and explained that they had heard I played guitar. I had just started learning. She told me there would be choir practice next Saturday before CCD class, and handed me a permission slip for my mom. They didn’task me—they summoned me. At the time, I was shy, not very skilled, and anxious. I told my mom, “The nuns recruited me for choir, but I don’t think I can do it. I’m too nervous.” My mom said, “Okay, you don’t have to. But you have to call the nun yourself and tell her.”
Forty-eight years later, here I am. Even though I’m on sabbatical now, that was the start. God doesn’t always pick the best people to do his work, and when I was chosen, I was far from the best. But I’ve been loyal and faithful ever since. For many years, I served without pay. Eventually, at St. Charles Borromeo in North Hollywood, I was paid to direct the choir for the Spanish Mass, where I led between 15 and 30 members.
My point is this: many artists like me had their first gig in church. From there, musicians would often branch out—if not into rock bands, then into Tejano bands. That was the pattern in my generation.
The second connection is in the music itself. Tejano lyrics often carry religious connotations. Many songs speak of God’shelp during difficult times. There’s a romantic element, but also a sense of mystery—very much like Catholicism itself.
The Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit. In Tejano music, themes of death, faith, and the hope of going to heaven are often found. Many songs in the Tejano market address prayer, asking God for help during difficult situations, or honouring the Virgin Mary. These themes are close to our hearts. You’ll often see Tejano artists wearing rosaries. Technically, you’re not supposed to wear them as jewelry, but they’ve become part of stage wardrobes. That’s another connection between Catholicism and Tejano.
And look at church festivals—who do they hire? Tejano bands. Undeniably, Catholicism and Tejano music are deeply intertwined. There’s a strong correlation between them.
Jacobsen: How does that connection lean into the dramatis personae—the sense of self and role—during performance or even in practice? Within your theology, the line can blur between performance as play-acting and performance as something more spiritual.
Mata: That’s a perfect point. Catholicism is full of mystery and symbolism. Think of the Eucharist: the bread becomes the body of Christ, the wine becomes his blood. The liturgy has multiple parts—the liturgy of the Word, the liturgy of the Eucharist, and, I would say, the liturgy of music.
Music itself can impact someone so profoundly that it feels almost like possession. It frees you, it lifts you, it gives you transcendence—almost like a spiritual opioid. In Catholicism, that freedom is tied to salvation, the sense of being free from evil and bound for heaven.
In that sense, the singer can take on the role of the priest. A powerful singer isn’t just performing; he’s preaching—the gospel according to Tejano. It’s the artist’s own book, expressed through song. Sometimes the music even feels monastic, like a Gregorian chant, with the audience singing along in unison.
The Mass itself is a kind of performance: an expression of love, of peace, of mystery. The most successful Tejano artists—like Selena—draw people in with that same sense of mystery. There’s something about them, an ineffable quality you can’t quite name, that feels magical, almost from another realm.
Jacobsen: I see that connection with the mystery of the Catholic Church. Now, as I learned, there is an International Association of Exorcists. They were founded in the early 1990s by Father Gabriele Amorth and Father Jeremy Davies. Some sources cite 1990, while others cite 1994. The organization doesn’t just organize and train exorcists; it also raises awareness about the issue. I’ve seen this reflected in Catholic media, including podcasts that bring them in for discussion.
It’s not purely Catholic in practice—though founded and led by Catholics, the membership also includes Anglican and Orthodox clergy. It functions as an interfaith organization in some respects. All exorcisms, of course, must be done with the express consent of a bishop, the local ordinary, or the Vatican.
Let’s take this formalized structure and build it into individual artistic expressions. Typically, when someone thinks of calling an exorcist, it’s because something is very wrong—it’s not a positive occurrence. How do you draw the line between artistic expression as a type of “possession” and literal possession? Could you give examples, perhaps from famous performers?
Mata: For instance, take Ozzy Osbourne—the late Ozzy Osbourne, known for biting the head off a bat onstage. That was theatrics, plain and simple. If you watch The Osbournes television show, you see he’s actually empathetic, deeply cares for his family, and has a big heart. His issues came from drugs, not demonic possession.
So, that line between performance and possession is clear. In Tejano, as in other genres, the “possession” we talk about in art is a metaphor—it’s about being overtaken by the spirit of music, not an actual supernatural event.
Drugs and alcohol can really alter the choices you make. Decisions under the influence are often decisions you wouldn’tmake sober. That was Ozzy Osbourne’s main problem. Much of the crazy stuff he did—like biting the head off a bat—he probably wouldn’t have done sober.
The whole bat incident started earlier. He once walked into a record-company meeting and, to make a statement, bit the head off an actual dove. After that became public, people started throwing things—dead animals, fake animals—onto the stage. One night, someone threw a bat. He thought it was fake, picked it up, and bit it. Only then did he realize it was real. That’s how that happened.
When it comes to possession and music, you must be cautious. You can open yourself to dark influences—just like playing with a Ouija board. If you believe there are demons and evil in the world, it’s possible to invite them in. For the sake of discussion, we can assume that premise.
As a musician—this applies to all genres, but since we’re talking about Tejano—you have to be mindful of your lyrics and your behaviour. If the lyrics get too dark, if you drink too much, you may open yourself up to evil spirits entering your psyche and soul.
I can only speak for myself, but there have been times when artists in the Tejano industry may have experienced something like demonic possession. That’s speculation on my part, but when you see destructive or “evil” behaviour onstage or offstage, it’s worth looking at the lyrics of their music, their mindset, and whether they may have opened themselves up to something darker.
By and large, Tejano music is beautiful. It’s a light to me. I believe it’s God’s gift—because it has lasted so long and continues to this day, I feel God favours it. More than anything, it makes people happy.
But as an artist, you have a responsibility to be careful not to tap into darkness. In any profession, you can open yourself up to portals of evil, of demonic possession. With music—through lyrics, performance, even the way you dress on stage—you need to be mindful. Dressing provocatively with the intent of luring people for the wrong reasons can open the door to darkness. That can lead to habitual drug use, and that, in turn, spills into personal life and can destroy someone.
That has happened. For me, I definitely went through my battles with the dark side, but I haven’t had a drink in 23 years—not a drop. The war with the dark side is much easier to win when you’re sober.
Jacobsen: How does this show up in perversions of Tejano? How does it show up in lyrics?
Mata: It could show up in lyrics. But by and large, Tejano lyricists are positive. They speak mainly about love, heartbreak, and redemption. They’re nowhere near as potentially toxic as, say, rap.
Sometimes you have to express yourself in your own way. I’m not knocking rap—sometimes that’s the best way to express yourself because that’s the language of the streets, and that’s rap. But in terms of Tejano artists, I can say, at least from my frame of reference, my lyrics were pretty clean. Minimal foul language, very little in the way of heavy sexual connotations—mostly about love, heartbreak, and redemption.
So I’d say Tejano lyrics get an A+. They’re really well thought out. They tell stories, and most are poetic in nature. It’srefreshing.
Jacobsen: Have you ever needed to call a priest?
Mata: No, never. Within the Tejano industry, no. We’ve called priests, but only to sing on stage.
Jacobsen: What song do they sing?
Mata: Oh, you know what’s very popular? Volver, Volver. It’s not a Tejano song per se, but Tejano bands always cover it. It’s basically the Tejano national anthem. Every artist, every conjunto band—everyone covers Volver, Volver. So when priests come up and sing with the band, they usually sing that song.
So in terms of priests and Tejano music, from my experience, it’s always been about blessings, not exorcisms. I don’tknow of any Tejano artist who has ever had an exorcism performed.
Jacobsen: That would make an interesting movie, though, featuring Oscar Solis.
Mata: Also, priests are often called when Tejano bands go on tour. They’ll bless the vehicle for safe travel and a merciful journey. That’s the central role I’ve seen priests play.
Jacobsen: How many of those interactions or emergency calls have you observed?
Mata: Black Sabbath—that band with Ozzy Osbourne—the way they got their name is interesting. They used to practice across the street from an old theatre. They noticed that whenever the theatre showed horror films, that was when it drew the biggest crowds.
And so they thought, “Whoa.” That’s when they realized: it was never that they wanted to form a band of the occult. But Ozzy and his bandmates said, “If horror movies draw crowds, maybe if we record ‘horror music,’ that’s how we’ll get people to follow us.” Hence the name Black Sabbath—they’d seen the film Black Sabbath and took the name from it. There was never an intent to be actual followers of Satan. It was all an artistic, theatrical choice.
But what it does is influence people. Impressionable listeners—especially those who have been hurt by the church—can interpret it differently. Many people, what we sometimes call “recovering Catholics,” have been hurt by individuals within the Catholic Church. The doctrine, to me, is solid, but people are people. Priests, nuns, and church workers are human; some have abused their power and hurt others. Consequently, people associate that hurt with Catholic doctrine itself, even though the teaching may not be the cause of the problem.
My point is: when people have been hurt, not only in Catholicism but in any faith, sometimes they turn to darkness as an alternative. Bands like Black Sabbath never intended to worship the devil. Other bands use similar theatrical devices. But people are influenced by their heroes. They may follow paths of darkness and consequently reach dark outcomes. “Play dark games, get dark prizes,” right?
Without a doubt, heavy metal has an aesthetic—darkness, gothic imagery—that can create an atmosphere where, even if people don’t actually worship Satan, they’re still immersing themselves in that world. And if you put yourself in that situation, you could open up a vortex, a portal, that sets you up for evil possession manifested through evil behaviour. Then maybe you need an exorcism. It’s rare, but possible.
I believe in God. I have a higher power that I call God—and I call him God because that’s his name. If I invoke God and the Holy Spirit, then I am free. In the music industry, the filmmaking industry, wherever I am, as long as I invoke the name of God, I can push away demonic spirits and darkness.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, JD.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/24
Karel Bouley is a trailblazing LGBTQ broadcaster, entertainer, and activist. As half of the first openly gay duo in U.S. drive-time radio, he made history while shaping California law on LGBTQ wrongful death cases. Karel rose to prominence as the #1 talk show host on KFI AM 640 in Los Angeles and KGO AM 810 in San Francisco, later expanding to Free Speech TV and the Karel Cast podcast. His work spans journalism (HuffPost, The Advocate, Billboard), television (CNN, MSNBC), and the music industry. A voting member of NARAS, GALECA, and SAG-AFTRA, Karel now lives and creates in Las Vegas.
Bouley, a pioneering gay broadcaster and activist, joins Scott Douglas Jacobsen for This Gay Week to discuss America’s rising hostility toward LGBTQ communities. Bouley argues that hatred in the U.S. operates like a “volume knob,” amplifying under anti-gay administrations and softening under supportive ones. He connects this resurgence to declining education, social-media toxicity, and emboldened bigotry. Bouley commends figures like Snoop Dogg for genuine growth and condemns the defunding of queer health agencies under Trump. He also warns that Turkey’s proposed anti-LGBTQ laws mirror far-right American ambitions, framing global queer rights as a battle between progress and regression.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with Karel Bouley for This Gay Week. We are going to go through some news.
Karel Bouley: What a week it was! What a week everything is.
Jacobsen: I want to start this session with something I have been thinking about. You would have a more informed opinion than I would, being an American and knowing the community. Cultures change—sometimes they evolve, sometimes they devolve—but they’re dynamic regardless. How is hate expressed socially in the United States against LGBTQ people in the 2020s?
Bouley: Openly. That’s really it. “Everything old is new again.” There’s nothing new. People like to think there is, but it’s all happened before. As Barbra Streisand once said, there are eight bars and sixteen notes—it’s all been done before. LGBTQ hatred in society, in all societies, is cyclical.
It cycles between being overt, public, and in your face, to quieter periods when people keep it to themselves. South Parkactually nailed this dynamic—Season 27 opens with “Sermon on the ’Mount.” Later, there’s an episode titled “Woke Is Dead,” which plays with the idea that “woke is dead” and bigotry is suddenly loud again.
Cartman says, “Where do I fit in? I’m not unique anymore.” That captures what we’re talking about. Society goes through periods of LGBTQ acceptance, where the noise and hatred die down. Things become quieter, more private, less overt.
Then we move into periods of overt hatred, when people don’t care—they say and do terrible things publicly. Government mirrors society, and society mirrors government. When the government is anti-gay, people feel emboldened to be anti-gay. When the government is pro-gay, anti-gay rhetoric quiets down and supportive voices grow louder.
That’s why the “bully pulpit” matters—it’s probably the president’s biggest lever: setting the country’s tone. When you have presidents like Obama or Biden—or even Clinton, though two of the worst anti-gay policies of the era, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and DOMA, happened on his watch—the overall tone toward LGBTQ people softens. Does hatred go away? No. It goes back into the closet.
When you have presidents like Bush, Reagan, or Trump, LGBTQ hatred gets louder. It is not evolution or devolution; it is a volume knob. What decibel level is the hatred this week? It is always there. It has never disappeared.
America also has an education problem. IQ tests are normed to an average of 100 by design; popular summaries sometimes peg the U.S. around the high-90s, but those estimates are debated. What isn’t discussed: literacy and learning setbacks are real. In 2022, about 30–32% of eighth-graders performed below NAEP Basic in reading, and in 2024, about 40% of fourth-graders were below Basic. The average ACT composite lately has hovered around 19–19.5 out of 36. We are under-educating many kids, and that is not accidental. Education has been starved of sustained investment.
Screens do not help when overused. Evidence links heavy social-media use with slightly lower reading and memory scores in early adolescence, and several reviews connect excess screen time with attention problems. It is easier to inflame people—especially with sound bites and no critical thinking—when attention and reading stamina are thin.
Right now, the volume level of LGBTQ hatred—particularly toward trans people—feels like a seven out of ten. Under Biden, it felt more like a four. The amount of hate does not necessarily change; the loudness does. And in sixty-three years on this planet, I have never seen it vanish.
There has never been a time when gay people have felt entirely accepted, loved, and part of society. Case in point—one of the stories I sent you today: LGBTQ youth mental health and crises are at an all-time high. That comes directly from Trump and the MAGA movement.
Both the legislation against LGBTQ people and the rhetoric surrounding it, especially in local communities, have created a climate of hostility. The noise level of the hatred is deafening. Young kids today aren’t used to that volume. They grew up under Biden; they came of age when the level of hate—the “volume”—was at about a four. Now it’s been cranked up. They’ve never experienced it like this before, and their mental health is being directly affected by what’s happening. It’s not that hate was gone—it was just quieter.
Jacobsen: I’ve seen reports from the United States, especially from New York, of men randomly punching women in public. These are essentially random acts of misogynistic violence. Some of these incidents have caused serious facial injuries. Does this kind of violence extend to the LGBTQ community as well?
Bouley: Of course. Hate crimes against LGBTQ people are rising—particularly against trans people. Absolutely. I personally know people who were walking down the street and got attacked, even in West Hollywood.
Look at what happened in Australia—young men were luring gay people using dating apps just to assault them. They’d arrange a meeting through a gay dating app, and when the victim arrived, they’d be ambushed and beaten by a group of attackers. That happened. The L.A. Times just ran a front-page story about a man arrested for killing four people he met through Grindr. He would lure them either to his home or theirs, then kill them.
That’s why using a dating app can feel like putting a target on your back. Violence has become so unpredictable. You’re talking about crimes happening barely a mile from my house. I’m seriously considering not using dating apps anymore for that very reason—because we’ve become targets.
And yes, it’s happening to women. I think it’s always happened to women, but it’s being publicized more now. Ask any woman—she’ll tell you that going out as a woman can be dangerous. The same goes for LGBTQ people. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been leaving a gay bar, and people walking by on the street started punching or harassing patrons. I’ve seen it firsthand for decades.
It’s happening to gay and trans people—especially trans people right now. And I don’t see it slowing down. That’s why, for a long time, there were groups called the Pink Panthers—armed neighbourhood watch groups of gay people who patrolled their communities to protect one another from harassment and violence.
I believe they were called the Pink Panthers. And yes, absolutely, it’s still relevant. I’m not saying violence against gay people has gone on longer than violence against women. Still, there’s definitely more public outrage when it happens to women than when it happens to gays. That ties directly into what we discussed earlier about levels of hatred.
For many people, a gay person getting beaten up for being gay is seen as “par for the course.” Historically, you can trace that normalization back to when such violence and condemnation were codified—and even sanctified—in religious texts.
Jacobsen: There’s that biblical line — “a man shall not lie with another man, for it is an abomination.”
Bouley: Yes, but first of all, that’s from the Old Testament, and the phrasing people know today comes from the King James Bible — rewritten by King James I of England. That line is not what the original Hebrew text said. The sentiment of the Old Testament was very different, and it was never about homosexuality. Homosexuality is never mentioned in the Bible at all, and it certainly isn’t in the Ten Commandments. If it were so important, you’d think it would have been included there.
Jacobsen: That’s a broad generalization, but also the interpretation varies widely across denominations, right?
Bouley: Yes, but those interpretations are extraordinarily wrong. The same churches that use that passage to condemn homosexuality ignore the rest of Leviticus, like the verses saying that if your wife doesn’t walk three steps behind you, you can stone her, or if she wears purple, she can be killed. They pick and choose the parts that justify their hatred. They want to hate gay people, so they find a biblical reference that doesn’t mean what they claim it means, and they cling to it. But they don’t cling to the parts about eating pork or other ancient prohibitions.
There was even a debate where someone confronted Charlie Kirk about this. The person said, “You say gay people should be stoned because of the Old Testament.” And Kirk said yes, that’s what God said. Then the person asked, “Well, you have a wife — do you make her obey all the Old Testament rules too?” And suddenly Kirk said, “Well, no, that’s taking it too literally.” That’s the hypocrisy. They search for reasons to hate and tailor their book of fiction — which is what the Bible is — to match that hatred.
Jacobsen: Shifting to something current — you mentioned Spirit Day and Snoop Dogg. He recently released a song for an animated children’s show in partnership with GLAAD, featuring a love anthem for queer families. What happened in the last three years that led to this shift?
Bouley: Snoop — who I love and admire — used to live about eight blocks from me. I even saw him perform once at VIP Records in Long Beach, a landmark for West Coast rappers. A few years ago, he took his kids to see Lightyear, the Pixar movie, which includes a brief same-sex kiss between two women. Afterward, he commented, “There should have been a warning — I don’t want to have to explain that to my kid.”
He got much backlash for that, especially since people pointed out the irony: a man known for misogynistic, womanizing lyrics was uncomfortable with two women expressing love. That hypocrisy didn’t go unnoticed.
To Snoop’s credit, he listened. He sat down with the Human Rights Campaign and GLAAD, along with people who educated him about why his comment was hurtful. He didn’t just issue a half-hearted apology — he learned. When he later released a children’s song, he decided to include LGBTQ-positive lyrics and themes.
That’s what growth looks like. He recognized that his earlier statement was ignorant and made a conscious effort to do better. For an African American rapper of his generation — remember, Snoop’s not 20 anymore — that’s real evolution.
He comes from a different era, but I think he’s totally on the right path. As a gay person, I commend him. He said something less than inclusive, realized it was ignorant, and made it right.
Jacobsen: The Bay Area Reporter, in a piece by Matthew S. Bajko, published a study showing the LGBTQ youth mental health crisis has worsened.
Bouley: The numbers are alarming—not a slight uptick, but a double-digit increase. It’s become fashionable again to bash, fire, or bully gay people—especially online—and there are no repercussions. It used to be, under previous administrations, that open homophobia was socially unacceptable. I’m not talking about thirty years ago. Since around 2005, for nearly two decades, it’s been largely unfashionable to be a homophobe. Now, it’s back in style, and these kids aren’t handling it well. Many are thinking about suicide.
LGBTQ youth have long had the highest suicide rates among young people, and this new data from the Bay Area Reporter and other outlets only confirms that we have a full-blown gay youth crisis. That cannot be stressed enough.
Jacobsen: So, where can these kids turn now?
Bouley: That’s just it—they can’t. They can’t turn to teachers or school administrators because Trump and his allies have effectively imposed gag orders. They can’t turn to books because schools and libraries are banning them. They can’t turn to social media because the anti-gay noise there is deafening.
The article mentioned that there are “more resources now,” even as depression and suicide rates rise. I find that questionable. Resources are being cut. In fact, during the current government shutdown, Trump has been using it to gut health organizations that serve LGBTQ people. Agencies that focus on queer health and mental health are being defunded or shut down entirely.
It’s not getting better for these kids. I think of Dan Savage’s It Gets Better campaign, which is supported by the Trevor Project, the leading organization helping LGBTQ youth. But the truth right now is: it’s not getting better. It’s getting worse. Gay organizations need to hyper-focus on the youth because they have nowhere left to turn.
Jacobsen: The Advocate also ran a related story by Christopher Wiggins titled “Trump’s Shutdown Layoffs Eliminate Entire Federal Health Agencies That Served LGBTQ+ People, Teens, and Women.”
Bouley: That ties directly into the other story. We’re seeing an increase in depression and suicide among LGBTQ youth, while at the same time, Trump is defunding or dismantling the very organizations designed to help them. The situation isn’t improving—it’s deteriorating, fast.
If I were the parent of a gay child in America right now, I’d take them out of America.
Jacobsen: Former HHS Deputy Assistant Secretary Adrian Shanker stated, “Without these people in place, it’s unlikely that a lot of these programs will be able to continue even after the government reopens.”
Bouley: That’s the key point—he’s not just shutting them down temporarily during the crisis. When they’re shut down, he’s either eliminating them or cutting so much staff that they become functionally useless, leaving only two or three people to run an entire program.
It’s a huge problem. After the shutdown, I don’t believe these organizations will recover. The Office of Management and Budget has already confirmed substantial workforce reductions across multiple agencies. He’s doing it across the board. Between 1,100 and 1,200 HHS employees have already been fired. More layoffs are expected this week at the CDC, wiping out entire divisions.
These include departments overseeing epidemiology, global health, and morbidity tracking. The CDC’s flagship public health bulletin was dissolved. A senior CDC scientist said the agency is “not functioning.” Within HHS, a former senior environmental administration official told The Advocate that the Office of Population Affairs—which administers Title X family planning programs, teen pregnancy prevention initiatives, and LGBTQ health programs—has been eliminated.
So no, it’s not getting better.
Jacobsen: Shanker also said, “This new reduction in force is devastating.” In The Hollywood Reporter, James Hibberd wrote an article titled “Pentagon Criticizes Netflix for ‘Woke Garbage’ in Wake of Gay Marine Drama ‘Boots.’” This is the one you wanted to discuss.
Bouley: “Woke garbage” that they haven’t even seen! They refused to comment on the show because, according to the Pentagon spokesperson, Peter Hegetschweiler—or whatever his name is—he admitted he hadn’t watched it. So they’re condemning something sight unseen.
Boots is based on a novel called The Pink Marine, written by Greg Cope White, who was a closeted man when he served. It’s fascinating because he’s not some prominent rainbow-flag-waving activist. He’s more reserved about it.
He wasn’t trying to be a poster child for gay pride. What this show captures beautifully is what life was like for Americans—because before you’re gay, you’re an American—who wanted to serve their country before Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.
That policy, flawed as it was, was still better than what came before. Boots shows the pain and anguish caused by a system where being gay in the military could get you criminally prosecuted or thrown in jail.
And talk about witch hunts—Trump’s favourite term. The military conducted countless witch hunts during that time, wasting immense resources trying to root out people who just wanted to serve. Boots is a remarkable depiction of life in the military before Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, told from the perspective of a closeted man.
In real life, Greg Cope White had a chance to get out. His eccentric mother had faked his birth certificate to enroll him in school early. So when he enlisted, he thought he was 18, but he was only 17. When the truth came out, his mother showed up with papers to bring him home. The commanding officer told him that if she signed the release form, he’d have to leave—but if she didn’t, he could stay. He begged her to let him stay.
He’d found something in the military he never had before: brotherhood, camaraderie, belonging. He’d been bullied his whole life—shoved into lockers, his head shoved into toilets. But in the Marines, he found purpose and connection. For the Pentagon to dismiss this story as “woke garbage” is absurd. If I were Secretary of Defence, I’d tell everyone to watch it.
A church in Norway has just apologized for how horribly it treated gay people. All Pete Dragon’s Breath should be doing is telling people, “We’re sorry we treated Americans this way.” But instead, they are calling it “woke content.” If holding a mirror to what you did as a military is too much for you to take, that’s your problem. They don’t want to see how badly they treated soldiers who wanted to serve—soldiers who were every bit as capable and, in many cases, more so because they had to overperform. Yet they were kicked out or jailed.
It is an excellent series employing many out actors. It comes at a time when the U.S. military is shifting back toward expelling gay service members. It shows what that looks like—and it is ugly. The Pentagon should say nothing but, “We’re sorry for what we did.” Anything else is partisan politics.
Jacobsen: The Church of Norway has apologized to the LGBT community for past discrimination. Presiding Bishop Olav Fykse Tveit delivered the apology at the London Pub in Oslo, the site of a June 2022 shooting during Pride celebrations, where two people were killed. Any thoughts about this international case?
Bouley: Two things. First, spare me the apologies—let’s do better going forward. Second, it is nice that a religious organization is admitting, “We messed up. This was unacceptable behaviour. We’re sorry. People died because of it.” Religion has fueled more hatred toward LGBTQ people than almost any other institution on the planet, and that hatred has real consequences, such as those two people who died during Pride.
For the Church of Norway to step forward like this—I’d like to think others will follow. I believe the presiding bishop alluded to that, urging other religions to do the same. I doubt they will, but at least one church did. And they did it now, not last year or next, because anti-gay sentiment is rising. I think the church is trying to cool that hatred by apologizing for its past transgressions.
Movements are surging; discrimination has a new currency. Amnesty International has reacted to leaked proposals in Turkey’s draft 11th judicial package that would criminalize LGBTI people, saying such proposals “must never see the light of day.”
Only a handful of religious institutions have made amends. In 2023, the Church of England apologized for its “shameful treatment” of LGBTQ people, but still refuses to allow same-sex marriages. The Methodist Church in Ireland apologized for failing in pastoral care to gay people, yet insists marriage is only between a man and a woman. The United Church of Canada, however, went further—it apologized and reaffirmed full inclusion and radical hospitality for Two-Spirit and LGBTQIA communities. At least that church both apologized and said, “We love you, we accept you.”
They did not say, “We apologize, but we’ll keep failing you.” They said, “We failed you, and we’re going to try to stop failing you.”
Jacobsen: The United Church of Canada has a long history of progressive leadership—it was the first to ordain women ministers in the 1930s and the first to accept an openly atheist minister, Gretta Vosper. It has been at the forefront of numerous issues in Canada, holding a special status among churches here. They apologized and, unlike others, meant it. They said, “We’re going to change our ways.” The others said, “We failed you,” but did nothing.
Turkey’s proposed 11th judicial package introduces criminal penalties targeting gay people. These proposals present a grave threat to the rights of LGBTQ people and those who advocate for them. For the first time in the Turkish Republic’s history, legislators could be considering the criminalization of any expression of gay identity, consensual same-sex activity, and access to gender-affirming care.
Bouley Under the false guise of protecting “public morality” and “family institutions,” these measures would, in reality, tear at the fabric of Turkish society. It is a 66-page leaked draft law proposing amendments to the Turkish penal code. Some of the statutes specifically target LGBTQ people. It is the third such package within a year; the two prior ones were not formally discussed in Parliament.
One proposed amendment to Article 225, their “indecency act,” increases the sentence for anyone publicly engaging in sexual relations or exhibitionism to up to three years in prison. Another addition states that anyone who “exhibits behaviour contrary to biological sex at birth and public morality,” or “promotes or praises such behaviour,” shall face imprisonment. This would criminalize not only being gay but also advocating for LGBTQ rights.
When I think of Turkey, I think of Midnight Express—one of the gayest films around. What happens in a Turkish prison stays there. I would never go to Turkey; as a vegan, I do not even eat turkey. There are places where it is safe to be gay and places where it is not. Turkey is one of the latter.
Where did this legislation come from? From entrenched anti-gay hatred. Turkey is one of the worst countries for LGBTQ rights, and it will not face much international pressure to stop this. There is a very real chance this will pass. If you are gay, stay away from Turkey. If you are gay and live there, get out.
If MAGA could enact everything it wanted in the United States, it would look a lot like this. Turkey’s version of Project 2025 has a shorter road to travel. In fact, they barely have a road—just a driveway to cross. Human rights, especially LGBTQ rights, have never been a priority there.
I agree with the member of parliament who said he will oppose it, but I predict that some form of the proposal will pass. Not all the penalties will be enforced, but there will be a crackdown.
Jacobsen: Thank you for your time for This Gay Week.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/24
Osamah Siddique is a Nuclear Imaging Engineer, and human rights advocate and son of Genocide survivors who serves as a senior voice within the Rohingya advocacy movement. He is affiliated with the Arakan Rohingya Union as a head of Diplomatic, public relations and moderated the August 2025 “Day of Remembrance, Resilience, and Resolve” at the UN. Siddique brings deep experience in communicating with officials and community members. He has worked with international institutions, governments, and NGOs in areas of human rights and community-based work. Siddique earned advanced Medical Engineering certifications from OHIO State, Medical Imaging Engineering from Helsinki-Finland , Health Care Management from Cornel New York , was a Biomedical Engineering student in AUSTN, and has Participations and personal touch widely in Rohingya solutions with State Department, officials and stakeholders.
In a candid and strategic exchange moderated by Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Osamah Siddique illuminated the evolving contours of Rohingya advocacy, justice, and empowerment. The conversation opened with the importance of a global coalition clustered around the UN observance, especially emphasizing youth inclusion as a bridge between grassroots testimony and international audiences. Siddique recounted how youth, many from refugee camps or diaspora, shared personal stories of displacement, injustice, and aspiration.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Through the Arakan Rohingya Union—particularly Voices of Rohingya Youth—what was the importance of bringing this global coalition together at the Church Center for the United Nations, as well as including a youth perspective and voice? What is the importance of having that coalition and youth input as well?
Mr. Osamah Siddique: We invited the youth to participate in that event to hear from them. Most of the youth came from difficult circumstances. Some came from refugee camps. Some were born in the diaspora. Each has their own stories and challenges.
Since we are from the same community, we have gone through similar challenges. Including the youth in this event was one of our goals—to send their message directly to the international community, as we had many representatives from UN missions at that event, along with international NGOs. That was our opportunity to deliver a message from the youth directly to the international community and other stakeholders focused on the Rohingya situation.
Jacobsen: What was the advocacy brought forward regarding the role of the UN and ASEAN in ensuring safe, voluntary, and dignified repatriation, as well as the full restoration of citizenship for the Rohingya?
Siddique: That was one of our main goals during this year’s involvement: repatriation with safety and dignity. We included other points in our resolution, but the main one was repatriation because there are about 1.16 million Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh, and many of them want to go back home—when rights and safety are guaranteed. We thank Bangladesh—the government and the people—for hosting this population for such a long period of time.
It has been a little over eight years since the 2017 exodus. UN bodies have documented evidence consistent with genocide and crimes against humanity, and the General Assembly continues to press for protection and lasting solutions.
Jacobsen: There were also Bosnian genocide survivors present. How does this shared experience—bringing together people who have gone through similar suffering but in very different contexts—help build solidarity while also showing that this is a deeply human case of suffering?
Siddique: It is not just under the banner of Rohingya. We feel connected to the Bosnian people, as we, the Rohingya, have gone through similar experiences. We received solidarity from the Bosnian community during the event, and we felt their positive feedback and support.
Jacobsen: The Organization of Islamic Cooperation has reaffirmed support for The Gambia’s case at the International Court of Justice against Myanmar. How is the legal case progressing now?
Siddique: The legal case is ongoing. We are in touch with the main law firm handling the case. They informed us that in the first or second week of January there will be another hearing, and we are following up closely with them.
Jacobsen: The UN Security Council seems paralyzed on the issue of the Rohingya and Myanmar. With regard to the General Assembly and the recent high-level meeting, what were the important motions, if any, made around advancing accountability?
Siddique: We are expecting a lot from the UN General Assembly. Accountability is one of the key points. The second issue raised was the proposal for a safe zone or a multinational force that could provide protection for our community inside Myanmar. However, we have not seen any positive action yet from the United Nations or the General Assembly. They are doing good work in terms of humanitarian assistance for the Rohingya community in the camps, but we are still expecting more from them.
Jacobsen: What is the significance of the joint resolution presented at the event? Were any of the specific measures called upon for the international community taken into account in terms of actions or stipulations at the General Assembly level?
Siddique: We have seen some movement from UN missions such as Canada and Finland. They are focusing on educational programs for refugees in the camps. The European Union is also working hard on education and humanitarian assistance. But beyond that, we have not seen any significant or effective action.
Jacobsen: The Justice for All Burma Task Force surveyed one thousand Rohingya women. This is a more complex question, but what were the overall themes of the testimonies these women provided based on that survey? What does this tell you about the overall needs of at least half the Rohingya population?
Siddique: For women, empowerment and education programs are essential. They have gone through very difficult circumstances in the camps and during displacement. We have seen testimonies collected by Justice For All, and most of them focused on the empowerment of women and girls in the camps.
Jacobsen: How do you take those sentiments and programs focused on empowering women and implement them over time, especially when people are not established—they’re in camps or part of the diaspora? These are difficult circumstances. How do you take the themes from those testimonies and make them a reality in practical terms? What can realistically be done, and what cannot?
Siddique: It is our job to communicate these messages to the international community and seek their support to implement programs and projects for women’s empowerment.
Jacobsen: You mentioned Canada earlier. How has Canada been overall? Where has it done well, and where could it improve? In terms of providing further support to the current plight of the Rohingya—whether that’s through voting at the UN, being a signatory to international petitions or initiatives, or through direct measures like financing and international aid.
Siddique: Canada could improve by helping to establish a more systematic and accredited educational system in the camps for the younger generation. There is a major gap for children of school age. Most of them do not have the opportunity to attend accredited schools, which prevents them from reaching the level required for international universities. For example, if they study in the camps, it is very difficult for them to gain admission to any university for higher education.
Our focus now is to provide an authentic education recognized by international institutions so they can continue to higher education. One day, they will be able to claim their rights, defend themselves, and work for their community. That is our main goal.
Jacobsen: Based on what I’m looking at here, Canada did recognize the Rohingya genocide. The Canadian government supports the International Court of Justice case, has imposed sanctions on the Myanmar junta and its enablers, and has provided ten million dollars in aid for skills and livelihoods for Rohingya in Bangladesh between 2024 and 2026, along with four million dollars for emergency response through Development and Peace–Caritas between 2025 and 2026. Global Affairs Canada has also maintained public pressure on the issue. That’s actually quite good as far as efforts go. So, of those efforts, would you say that humanitarian aid and continued sanctions are probably the most practical measures moving forward, given that ICJ support and genocide recognition are already established?
Siddique: There is a major shortage in humanitarian aid, especially through the World Food Programme. The recent high-level conference focused on that. Thanks to the United States, the United Kingdom, and South Korea for contributing to that effort. The challenge is that there are about 1.1 to 1.2 million refugees in Bangladesh, and it is difficult to reach everyone. There are constant shortages.
Another issue is with the Rohingya who are still living inside Rakhine State in Myanmar. The humanitarian corridor there has been closed for many years. We are expecting discussions from the international community with those who control the area. It was under junta control before, but currently the Arakan Army is controlling parts of it. It is very difficult, and humanitarian aid is urgently needed inside Rakhine State as well.
Jacobsen: Thank you very much for your time today.
Siddique: Thank you very much.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/23
Riane Eisler, an Austrian-born American systems scientist, futurist, and human rights advocate, is renowned for her influential work on cultural transformation and gender equity. Best known for The Chalice and the Blade, she introduced the partnership versus dominator models of social organization. She received the Humanist Pioneer Award. Drawing on neuroscience and history, she argues that peace begins at home and calls for a shift in worldview to build more equitable, sustainable, and compassionate societies rooted in connection rather than control. The three books of hers of note that could be highlighted are The Chalice and the Blade—now in its 57th U.S. printing with 30 foreign editions, The Real Wealth of Nations, and Nurturing Our Humanity: How Domination and Partnership Shape Our Brains, Lives, and Future (Oxford University Press, 2019).
In this in-depth dialogue with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Eisler discusses the intersection of religion, gender, and power within her partnership–domination framework. Eisler explains how faith-based systems can either reinforce domination—through fear, obedience, and male supremacy—or foster partnership, emphasizing love, care, and equality. She traces patriarchal control from ancient myths and religious dogma to modern politics, linking domination systems to violence and ecological neglect. Eisler advocates re-examining cultural narratives, from Homer’s Odyssey to modern media, to dismantle misogyny and revalue caring work. Through conscious cultural evolution, she argues, humanity can transcend domination and build societies grounded in empathy and mutual respect.
Interview conducted October 11, 2025.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Welcome to Riane Eisler on partnership studies. Thank you for joining me again. We’re on partnership studies number ten or eleven; I’ll confirm that in the transcript. Today’s topic is everyone’s favourite dinner table discussion over Christmas — religion, life after death, death, domination systems, justifications for domination systems, abortion, and related issues. Let’s start with the big picture: what is faith, or what is religion as an expression of faith?
Riane Eisler: That’s a difficult question because we all must have some faith. The question is whether there is fear associated with that faith. Is there guilt, in-group versus out-group division, anger, or not? Do we assume, as many religions that support what I call domination systems do, that what counts is not “this vale of tears”—the world in which we all live—but what happens before we are born and after we die?
Much of the emphasis in religions that maintain domination lies in the assumption that what really matters, as in the crusade against abortion, concerns what happens before we are born. Similarly, in religions that assume we will go to hell if we do not believe in their doctrine, or to heaven if we do, what matters is what happens after we die. The space in between is assumed to be one of suffering, as expressed in the medieval phrase “vale of tears.”
Many reform movements—such as the Unitarians and some of the more progressive branches of the Presbyterians—have emphasized something else: what we do while we are here on this planet, while we are alive. Love, which lies at the core of all our scriptures—caring, doing unto others as you would have them do unto you—is emphasized, rather than being applied only to the male members of the in-group.
Jacobsen: Do the societal patterns you identify in partnership and domination models of society appear here as well? For instance, in a faith-based system that is more domination-oriented, you find more violence. In contrast, in those that are more partnership-oriented, you see greater gender equity. Are those patterns evident in these forms of human activity, too?
Eisler: Absolutely. The moment you introduce fear, the question becomes: fear of what? Fear of violence, of punishment. In male-dominated societies—patriarchies—that fear becomes associated with a male deity. Gender is built into everything. It is not just a “women’s issue.” It is a central organizing principle for families, religions, societies, and economies. However, we have not been fully aware of it. Changing consciousness, therefore, involves, in a significant way, changing our consciousness about gender.
Jacobsen: The sacralization of rank, control, and domination within religious systems. You have this fear of death, this unknown of what happened before we were born or where we are going—if anywhere—when we die. At least we can have control here and now, and I can be the one to impose it, Mr. So-and-so. Any thoughts?
Eisler: That is a domination system. What you are pointing out is that religion can be, as we see in the Unitarian Universalist tradition and in some of the more progressive branches of other faiths—as we see in Judaism, particularly in Reform Judaism, or even in Conservative Judaism—differsr from what we see in Orthodox traditions. In Orthodox Judaism, there is love, but it is love for the male who must study the Torah and Talmud, and women are expected to help him do that. Women play a very active role in Orthodox Judaism. Still, they are thoroughly socialized—one might say indoctrinated—to do so.
Jacobsen: Within Jewish communities, these were often the elite intellectual men and families, were they not?
Eisler: The elite intellectual men and families, yes. Religions that uphold and support domination are unfailingly structured with man on top—as in “God-fearing”—and God, of course, is male. It requires a tremendous amount of acrobatics because Yahweh, or Jehovah, was originally a war god, and the story of Eve and Adam being expelled from the Garden is such a blend of older mythologies.
Why would—a question I asked as a child—a woman ask advice from a snake? It’s not something we usually do. Yet, under the old reality and even after the prehistoric shift to domination, consider the Oracle of Delphi: she was a priestess, a woman working with a python, a snake that symbolized oracular prophecy. It made perfect sense for Eve, in the older symbolic order, to ask advice from a snake. But under the new dominator reality, she was punished for it.
Think also of the prehistoric Minoan goddess-priestess figures with snakes coiled around their arms in trance. That represents the old religion, which we can only partly reconstruct. Still, there were priestesses—there is no question about that. And they were associated with snakes and oracular wisdom.
All the so-called goddess and priestess figurines from prehistory are a testament to that, and they’re all, as Merlin Stone wrote, in the basements of museums. It’s fascinating that if you see a male figure, he’s called a god or a priest; if you see a female figure, she’s labelled a woman. Of course, she was often a priestess, a deity, because that was the mythical reality in those days.
We’re now discovering so much about prehistoric belief systems, about social structures in our prehistory. Recently, and this was reported in The Wall Street Journal, of all places, owned by Murdoch no less, Chinese archaeologists uncovered an ancient prehistoric society that was matrilineal and relatively egalitarian.
However, we’re given all this information in fragments, and my work has been about “connecting those dots.” To do that, you need the framework of the partnership–domination scale, a whole-systems methodology. The more a religion supports and sanctifies domination and violence, the more it serves as an instrument of the domination system. The more it emphasizes the core teachings—what we might call the feminine-coded values in domination systems—such as love and caring, the more it reflects our shared human capacity and need for connection.
So, it isn’t religion per se that is the problem, but rather religions that lean towards the domination side of the social scale. They are harmful not only to their adherents—often deeply traumatized individuals drawn to them—but also to all of us. I can attest to this from my own experience attending a Methodist school in Cuba. When Dr. Muñoz, the principal, asked who believed in Jesus Christ, I finally grew tired of being the only child who didn’t raise her hand. There was tremendous pressure to conform, to proselytize, and to not “tolerate”—a word I dislike—rather than truly accept difference.
Regressions to domination always produce violence. Religions that lean toward domination consistently frame gender through fixed, ranked stereotypes—masculine over feminine. Yet semantically, the alternative to patriarchy is not matriarchy. It is partnership. And the evidence indeed shows that in prehistory.
The evidence from prehistory shows clearly that societies in which women were priestesses and held power were not matriarchies. For example, in Minoan Crete, there are depictions of both male priests and priestesses. The assumption that dominating and being dominated are the only alternatives is a projection of our own conditioning. In Greta Gerwig’s film Barbie, the story explores the dilemma of whether to adopt a matriarchy rather than a patriarchy. Still, the film ultimately points toward more complex possibilities than simply swapping rulers. You can’t merely have women in charge; you need partnership, which includes, of course, enlightened men.
Jacobsen: As far as my limited knowledge goes, most movements for gender equity, particularly around women’s equality, have included a substantial majority of women, alongside a smaller but essential cohort of enlightened men. Without those men, progress wouldn’t have been possible. You even need a weak partnership model to make any real progress toward universalism.
Eisler: Yes, there are more and more enlightened men. The whole men’s movement—figures such as Gary Barker and Jackson Katz—reflects that. They have worked on men’s engagement in gender equity and preventing violence. They embrace caring for men, showing that men, though still a minority in caregiving roles historically, are increasingly taking on traditional caregiving responsibilities, such as diapering and feeding babies, and engaging in what we traditionally call “mothering”—caring work.
The gender stereotypes are being questioned. And that’s one of the primary reasons, as you can see in these regressions to domination, for the renewed insistence on reinstating the male as head of household, as superior, as decision-maker. These frameworks connect gender and domination and aim to return to those old dominator stereotypes—that only the “masculine” is entitled to rule, just as God is entitled to dominate through fear and force.
Jacobsen: Another aspect of those narratives—the gods themselves are often framed as male. The extreme example, I think, is Protestant and Catholic Christianity, where the primary feminine counter-image is the Virgin Mary. You have Rachel and others, but generally speaking, it all collapses into imagery of motherhood and virginity.
Eisler: That’s the only role for women in a strict patriarchy, which classical Greece certainly exemplified in many ways. In ancient Athens, the “good” women were confined to the household, to the “women’s quarters.”. At the same time, the hetairai often served as courtesans and companions with social roles distinct from respectable wives.
Jacobsen: It’s almost a pretty title — it even sounds lyrical.
Eisler: The hetairai were the ones present at men’s feasts—companions and entertainers. There’s this dynamic, like in Jung’s concepts of animus and anima, where the anima has no independent identity except in relation to the male animus. She’s either a man’s temptation or a man’s inspiration. We’ve been conditioned to see women as existing simply to be men’s “helpers,” right?
Jacobsen: De-agentified, basically. There’s no autonomy.
Eisler: Absolutely no autonomy. And all this talk about ego being the problem—frankly, women have struggled in this second phase of feminism to develop an ego, to have an identity that is truly their own. In the domination mythology, women are still expected to lack one. So, there’s much work to do. That’s where the Four Cornerstones come in, and where the project I’ve long envisioned becomes vital: bringing together genuinely progressive representatives of all religions to sort out the essence—the actual grain of their teachings—from the dominator overlay. Until that happens, religion will continue to be used against us.
A Sufi Muslim once told me quietly that while he agreed this is an essential way to address how religion is being weaponized to justify domination, he couldn’t participate—because clerics might issue a fatwa calling for his death.
Some extremists interpret the Qur’an to justify violence against non-believers; others emphatically reject such readings and argue for peaceful interpretations.
Did you know that toward the end of the war, Hitler issued an edict allowing German soldiers to have four wives, like the Koran allows for Muslim men? He said it was to boost morale. But of course, it was the reinstatement of rigid gender stereotypes.
Jacobsen: There you go. Was that under Christian auspices at that point, or was it more of a secular fascist policy?
Eisler: It was a mess, really, because as you know, some Christian denominations actively supported Hitler.
Jacobsen: Yes, they did.
Eisler: Gender was absolutely central to his ideology. However, it’s rarely discussed except in my books and in Claudia Koonz’s work. The role of gender in authoritarian movements is profoundly underexamined. You can see the same dynamic resurfacing today in the United States. With the current administration, it’s pretty clear that gender is at the heart of the regression.
Jacobsen: I’ve always felt that the American portrayals of World War II—especially on popular channels—miss the point. It’s all about battle strategies, generals, “heroes,” and the hardware—guns, tanks, bombers, munitions. They rarely engage with Hitler’s ideological obsessions. And when modern podcasts do cover it, they focus on things like the drugs the Nazis used, rather than the psychological and ideological pathology driving it all.
Eisler: It was so clear. In Nazi propaganda, Jews were blamed for the so-called emancipation of women. It was right there in front of everyone’s eyes, but people didn’t see it—they didn’t connect the dots. Gender was absolutely central.
We’re always brought back to the Four Cornerstones, as they serve as the pillars supporting either domination systems or partnership systems, beginning with childhood and family. If we connect the dots, we see how crucial is what children observe, experience, and are taught in families that are dominated. They learn fear. They learn that punitive violence from those in power is normal. They know the supposed superiority—because they see it in their families and cultures—of men over women, of the “masculine,” as defined by domination systems, over the “feminine,” which is equated with weakness, caring, caregiving, and nonviolence. Those qualities are treated as flaws for men!
It’s all interconnected. Gender informs economics, too. I often repeat: What do children see? If they grow up seeing the ranking of male and “masculine” over female and “feminine,” they internalize the equation of difference with superiority and inferiority, dominance and submission, serving and being served. Think of the old photographs—women standing behind men who sit and are served. That visual hierarchy translates directly into economics. That’s why gender stereotypes, and their ranking, is essential for the maintenance or imposition of domination across the board.
Both capitalist and socialist systems exclude the three life-sustaining sectors from their economic models: the natural economy, the volunteer community economy, and the household or family economy. For instance, a tree—on which we depend for absorbing carbon dioxide and releasing oxygen—is counted in GDP only when it’s dead, when it’s a log to be bought and sold. Only then is it considered “productive.” Similarly, you can work from dawn to dusk caring for children, the sick, or the elderly, and none of that counts as “productive” labour. It’s labelled “reproductive.” Unless someone is paid for it.
If a housekeeper or an au pair performs the same work, it suddenly becomes “productive.” This was by design. Both Adam Smith and Karl Marx—reflecting the assumptions of their time—believed that caring and caregiving were women’s unpaid duties within a male-controlled household. Neither addressed care for our natural life-support systems, which were also marginalized as merely reproductive.
It’s absurd. We must transform how we reward and value caring and caregiving—in both market and non-market sectors. That’s what we’ve worked on at the Center for Partnership Systems: creating new ways to measure what truly matters. Because we value what we measure, and we measure what we value.
We began by asking: how many children receive adequate care? How many don’t? We measured both inputs and outputs, as most so-called alternatives to GDP only measure outputs, providing a snapshot of the system at one point in time. We also wanted to measure the investments—the inputs that make a caring society possible.
Jacobsen: What about in faith-based systems—the psychological mechanisms that function like an economy? The pleasures and pains of work and reward, but applied to things that, as far as we can tell, don’t exist outside the believer’s perception. There’s this idea of deferring gratification for celestial payoffs: rivers of milk and honey, seventy-two virgins—or white raisins, depending on the translation—union with God, or a better reincarnation next time, maybe as a Brahmin instead of a labourer. What’s the psychological economy of that in partnership studies? How does it fit into the religious mythos? It seems to tie in nicely with the central theme here.
Eisler: You’ve touched on something essential. Religions that support domination teach that obedience is what truly matters. That’s the core psychological attitude—obedience and praise. Praise of the dominator deity. “Thy will be done.” “Praise be to God.” I recently attended a concert featuring Mozart’s Mass, which is beautiful music. Still, they projected the lyrics, and I honestly wished they hadn’t. The words were psychopathic: “We obey you, we venerate you, we worship you.” It was all submission to power.
Jacobsen: That reminds me of that Monty Python scene—Michael Palin as the priest, the boys singing, “Oh Lord, you are so absolutely huge.”
Eisler: Exactly! “Oh Lord.” Think about that word for a moment—Lord, King of Kings. What does it imply? Historically, the feudal lord was venerated and even had the so-called “right of the first night” with a serf’s bride. It was grotesque. Yet we still call God “Lord.” The language reveals the structure: domination.
There was, for a time, a movement to broaden that language—to speak of “God and Goddess,” or simply “the powers that be.” But the current regressions are pushing back hard against that inclusive trend. Take creationism, for example. The pope—the head (another revealing word) of the Catholic Church—once said that evolution is compatible with creationism. And I would agree, but only if we’re not talking about the creationism of the Lord, the dominator deity who demands obedience.
Jacobsen: Evolution is too subtle for that worldview.
Eisler: Science, modern Western science, originated in a world, in the words of the historian of science David Noble, a world without women—and also, I would add, a world without children. Only gradually did science begin to open those boundaries. I mean, Galileo, for example, challenged the “scientific” orthodoxy of his time by asserting that the Earth revolves around the sun, not the other way around. He was punished for that—tried by the Roman Inquisition in 1633, forced to recant, and kept under house arrest for the rest of his life.
Jacobsen: There’s another aspect of faith that ties into generational thinking. Many traditions speak in supernatural or superstitious terms—curses passed from “fathers unto sons unto sons”—as though morality were genetic and punishment hereditary. But these same texts also carry an obsession with lineage. There’s deep time embedded in them. Even the gods themselves, whether in polytheistic or later monotheistic systems, have genealogies. Christianity, for example, compresses it into one paradoxical figure—God making himself his own son, dying, resurrecting, and promising to return. Technically, that would be a third appearance.
Yet underneath all of that is reproduction—control of women’s reproductive choices. When to have children, if at all, how many, under what circumstances. The pill, mifepristone—these are astonishingly recent in human history. But they’ve undercut the ideological structures that depended on controlling women’s fertility. And now we’re seeing a backlash, an attempt to reassert those mandates.
What do you make of this? Of the technological undermining of those old controls—and the pushback that’s followed? How do you see partnership systems advancing amid such overwhelming pressures on every part of life?
Eisler: Well, look, I have—and this started with my book The Chalice and the Blade, which was the first stemming from my multidisciplinary, whole-systems approach. In that book, which came out in 1986, I argued that we have a choice between breakdown and breakthrough in evolution.
I also argued that, in our time of what I call “technologies of destruction”—nuclear weapons and, more slowly, climate change, both of which are human creations—we have to shift to partnership: to an understanding of our interconnection, to a more nonviolent way of relating. Otherwise, eventually—and perhaps quite suddenly with a nuclear bomb, even a suitcase bomb—our species is doomed.
So this is so obvious to me. And yet, many people are in denial about it. The domination system, at our current level of technological development, if guided by an ethos of domination, can take us to an evolutionary dead end.
Jacobsen: Most of us are in denial about this, to keep on going. But that’s the reality. I mean, do partnership studies applied to faith-based systems imply the building of new narratives, or dissolving a little bit of the dominant narratives and allowing people to formulate their own sense of agency without them?
Eisler: Well, it really requires both. I’m working with Melanie Lynch on deconstructing The Odyssey, because Homer was the great propagandist for the imposition of the domination system. If you look at The Odyssey, it is full of clues about an earlier society in which women held power—but they’re now primarily vilified in the story. Think of the Sirens, who are portrayed as deadly to men. There’s no evidence of that anywhere, but there you have it.
What you see in the Odyssey are influential female figures, yet they’re depicted as monsters. Charybdis is a monster; Scylla is a monster. Odysseus must navigate between them to avoid destruction. Circe and Calypso—he lives with them, has sexual relationships with them—and they “hold” him through attraction. They’re framed as dangerous or immoral. Penelope, of course, is the loyal wife; yet Odysseus gains his power through her. And he has Telemachus kill the slave girls who first clean up the mess after Odysseus kills the suitors vying for Penelope to marry them so they can gain power, and then these female slaves are executed for having had relations with the suitors, whether willingly or under coercion. It doesn’t matter; Odysseus commands that they be killed.
It’s the normalization and glorification of the hero as a killer. And it’s really about relegating females—who once, and still, held power in partnership with men—to a subordinate position.
The Iliad, of course, starts with this “moral issue” of whether the king Agamemnon or the warrior Achilles should possess the “prize” of war—a woman, a human being, now a slave—without any concern for what she might have thought of all this. Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey normalize the hero as a killer and frame patriarchal violence as virtue.
But we also have to make up new partnership-oriented stories. So, it’s a process of deconstruction and reconstruction at the same time. One is not exclusive of the other.
We need to deconstruct many of the false stories we’ve been told. But we also must reconstruct—and feminists, for example, have reconstructed a lot of the fairy tales that children, girls and boys, are told, which are such idealizations of nobility: the king, the prince, the male. So much so that a Sleeping Beauty can’t even wake up without a prince, a male, a prince, a superior, a dominator.
It’s always the older woman who is the villain. In contrast, it’s the innocent young woman who is subordinate and subservient and grateful to the prince for rescuing her. Talk about teaching learned helplessness here—and teaching boys that men are the superiors, and nobles are even more superior than other men, and so on.
I did a radio show where I just made fun of this—this was in the sixties—the idea of somehow being able to fit into the princess slipper, because that’s what it was. You had to mould yourself to fit into the princess. But I was furious at that time. And then I stopped being angry. I stopped blaming and shaming. And I realized that men are also in terrible shape in the domination system.
I used to wear those stiletto high heels—my God. I don’t know how people put up with that. I don’t know how I walked then, but I don’t anymore.
Jacobsen: So, I want to do a couple of things. I’ve got to give credit where credit’s due—this was not me pointing this out. This was a Jewish woman criminal lawyer who I travelled with in the Summer. She astutely had noted that Schopenhauer had a decidedly negative image of women—that’s putting it mildly.
He had an essay titled On Women. He writes that in societies where monogamy is the norm, “to marry means to halve one’s rights and double one’s duties.” He claims that women are “by nature meant to obey.” He describes them as childish, short-sighted, and intuitive rather than rational, asserting that they are deficient in justice. Some scholars have called him the arch-misogynist—in the sense that he is uncompromising and systematic, rather than incidentally prejudiced. This misogyny was not peripheral but foundational to his worldview; his values and philosophical conclusions flowed downstream from that mountain. He critiqued marriage, partnership, and monogamy.
He built this as part of his metaphysical and ethical system. So this may be the first instance of which I’m aware—and again, I cannot take credit for pointing this out; it required further light research for me to see it—of what might be called metaphysical misogyny. I mean, there are transcendentalist versions of misogyny that appear in theologies involving gods or divine hierarchies. Still, Schopenhauer’s philosophy was distinct in that it was metaphysical without necessarily invoking a god, just from one man’s system.
What are your reflections on individuals like him who built entire philosophical schools?
Eisler: He wasn’t alone. I mean, look at Aristotle. Among his so-called wisdoms was the idea that enslaved people and women are meant to be subordinate because they were “born” that way—born into slavery, born women. Period. Deductive logic in a loop.
Nietzsche—Nietzsche was a misogynist par excellence. And strangely, he’s often quoted by scholars who should know better as a philosopher who valued freedom. But, of course, that freedom was only for males. He was very clear that it did not apply to women, who were meant to be subordinate.
And even into the modern era, before genetics was widely understood, influential scientific lore held that only men passed on hereditary traits—that women were merely vessels. We think that scientists are free of bias because they’re called “objective,” which is absolutely absurd.
So our job is to examine all of these myths, deconstructing and reconstructing them. Because people need stories. People live by stories. And I pointed this out already in The Chalice and the Blade.
We need stories that show the advantages of partnership. And there are many of them. Findings from science again—though often isolated—show, for example, that sex is much better when both partners, including the woman, enjoy it.
So these truths exist. But the old patriarchal logic says: you use the bodies of women. And women have internalized this—thinking somehow that they’re sexually free, “liberated,” when they perform hyper-sexualized acts for male approval, like twerking in pop culture.
Take the example of Miley Cyrus in that famous performance. A friend of mine, Brie Mathers, wrote an excellent book exposing this illusion—that so many young women have internalized because it’s socially rewarded—the idea that if they become more effective sex objects by enjoying being sex objects, they’re somehow liberated. This is absolute nonsense. You’re not liberated if you’re still defined as an object.
Miley is precisely that—a sex object—when she twerks around a fully dressed older man. Think about that image. It’s the same old story, just updated for the modern stage.
That old painting comes to mind—the one with the fully dressed men having a picnic with naked women. I think it was Le Déjeuner sur l’herbe by Manet. Something is clearly wrong with that picture.
Jacobsen: Rigid ranking, gender control, sanctioned violence, gods, metaphysics, philosophers, abortion, life after death—narratives, cultural logics. I suppose we should conclude by discussing any thoughts on conceptions of life after death within these frameworks.
Eisler: It’s punishment and reward. If you’re a good, obedient, God-fearing person, you get to go to heaven. And if you’re not—if you’re a sinner—you go to hell for eternal torture. This isn’t just a medieval idea; it’s baked into some modern religious beliefs of those who want to impose them on others. It’s domination through religion—first over those who believe it, and then over those on whom they wish to impose it.
The fact of the matter is, none of us has the cognitive equipment to know what happens after death or before birth.
Jacobsen: Any final thoughts before we go?
Eisler: I think the importance of the Four Cornerstones—story and language, especially—is enormous. I’m leaving language aside for now; we could do another discussion on that, though it’s pretty depressing. But the stories we’ve all been told, whether religious or secular, have to be examined and re-examined through the lens of the partnership–domination social scale.
Just think of those Four Cornerstones and how much attention they receive—whether it’s the Taliban, the current administration in the United States, Hitler’s Germany, or Stalin’s Soviet Union. There were no women at the top in the USSR. Women could be functionaries below, but in the Politburo? Nothing. And look how much attention is paid to gender—and how we’ve been conditioned to accept it as “just the way things are.”
Dominator religion reinforces this—the Lord, the King, the God commands it to be so. That’s a complex story to overcome, but some people do. I’ve even written about a man who could reasonably be called a fascist in his hatred of Jews, whom a Jewish rabbi and his wife befriended. They helped him—and he ended up converting to Judaism. People can change.
And we have to count on that. Neuroscience tells us that the first five years of life are critical, when our brains are forming in response to what we see and experience. But it also tells us we can change. Consciousness can shift in an instant—it really only takes a second.
My work has changed the consciousness of many people, including myself.
Jacobsen: The end.
Eisler: See you next week.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/22
Irina Tsukerman is a human rights and national security attorney based in New York and Connecticut. She earned her Bachelor of Arts in National and Intercultural Studies and Middle East Studies from Fordham University in 2006, followed by a Juris Doctor from Fordham University School of Law in 2009. She operates a boutique national security law practice. She serves as President of Scarab Rising, Inc., a media and security strategic advisory firm. Additionally, she is the Editor-in-Chief of The Washington Outsider, which focuses on foreign policy, geopolitics, security, and human rights. She is actively involved in several professional organizations, including the American Bar Association’s Energy, Environment, and Science and Technology Sections, where she serves as Program Vice Chair in the Oil and Gas Committee. She is also a member of the New York City Bar Association. She serves on the Middle East and North Africa Affairs Committee and affiliates with the Foreign and Comparative Law Committee.
In this interview with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Tsukerman discuss Hamas’s partial acceptance of Trump’s Gaza plan, highlighting unresolved disputes over disarmament, oversight, and IDF withdrawal. Tsukerman stresses Hamas’s antisemitic stance, propaganda tactics, and declining support in Gaza. The conversation broadens to Human Rights Watch reports on incendiary weapons, raising questions about credibility and enforcement. They also examine Georgia’s October elections amid repression, Moldova’s contrasting trajectory, and Tucker Carlson’s controversial rebranding, including allegations of financial influence. Tsukerman argues that media manipulation, weak enforcement of international law, and political opportunism underscore persistent threats to democratic processes and global security.
Interview conducted on October 10, 2025, in the afternoon Pacific Time.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Alright, we’ll start at the top here. We’ve had several Nobel Prizes announced. Congratulations to the winners who have made significant contributions to humanity and their scientific endeavours. The most recent and noteworthy concern is the Nobel Peace Prize. María Corina Machado won the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize, representing Venezuela. She is an opposition leader.
She is a key unifying figure, says Jørgen Watne Frydnes, chair of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, stating, “In the past year, Ms. Machado has been forced to live in hiding. Despite serious threats against her life, she has remained in the country—a choice that has inspired millions. When authoritarians seize power, it is crucial to recognize courageous defenders of freedom who rise and resist.” Any thoughts?
Irina Tsukerman: It probably is one of the better examples of Nobel Peace Prize winners in recent years. She has worked tirelessly for many years to bring democracy to the country. It is essential to remember that the Nobel Peace Prize encompasses more than just diplomatic efforts to end armed conflicts. It is also about bringing peace from internal upheaval and authoritarianism, and restoring people’s ability to live in peace. That doesn’t always come from wars. Sometimes it must come from resistance to regimes that turn countries into war zones to preserve power and suppress freedoms.
Venezuela has faced significant challenges for many years. One of the issues that hindered a concerted effort is that until relatively recently, the opposition was deeply divided and unable to unite behind a single candidate. Many of them were various forms of left-wing. While they were publicly anti-authoritarian, many of their policies were not sufficiently distinct from those that led to Maduro’s rule to provide a strong contrast. This made it challenging to mobilize citizens who were inert, passive, or afraid of political involvement into a counter-opposition movement.
Now, in the face of Machado, there is a growing sense of unity. She has been able to focus people’s energy, making her far more effective than many who challenged the Chávez–Maduro machinery but lacked legitimacy and broad public support. That is beginning to change. Combined with the fact that Venezuela is being taken more seriously by the U.S. and others as a legitimate security concern, there is more pressure on Maduro than before. Also, his mishandling of relations with China and failure to pay debts have worsened his position.
This award was well deserved. I hope it will open doors to new opportunities and inspire people to take Venezuela’s democratic struggle more seriously—and not repeat what the U.S. did a few years ago, when there was an opportunity to oust Maduro but the first Trump administration left him hanging.
The U.S. failed to follow through, and the initiative fizzled out, becoming a complete embarrassment. I hope that if such an opportunity ever presents itself again, the U.S. government will actually provide the backing that the opposition needs. We’re seeing some improvement, as evidenced by the bounty now on Maduro’s head. On the other hand, Trump is known for cutting deals with just about anybody, and who knows—if Maduro offers him enough of whatever, he may turn the whole situation around in Maduro’s favour.
Jacobsen: Another possible good one—Turkey and Iraq have reached a draft agreement on sharing water as mutual droughts worsen. Nature does not care about borders. Water flows from the Tigris and Euphrates have been dwindling, which is very significant as the region faces worsening drought conditions. Iraqi Foreign Minister Fuad Hussein noted that the draft agreement between the two neighbours would be signed in Iraq. Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan stated, “We know and understand the difficulties you’re experiencing. Our brothers and sisters in this region… the waters of the Euphrates and Tigris rivers belong to all of us.” That’s an entirely reasonable stance and framing from all three parties, as far as I can tell. Your thoughts?
Tsukerman: Yes, it’s a significant development. A combination of climate change, human mismanagement, and political impasse has plagued the entire region. Multiple disputes and long-simmering tensions over water rights persist. Iran has become a major villain in that story, in the sense that it has literally diverted water from its neighbours—especially Iraq—by damming up the water flow, which in turn affects other countries. Iraq and Turkey have attempted to cooperate in several areas, including connectivity and an economic corridor. Still, security issues, corruption, and political obstacles have hindered progress.
This agreement is more likely to endure and prove somewhat constructive because it’s also much more urgent. Iraq is facing severe droughts, which could lead to potential famine, unrest, migration flows, and clashes that it cannot afford. Turkey is suffering from significant inflation and assorted economic problems, even as it pursues an assertive—some might say aggressive—foreign policy externally. Fixing a water issue could go a long way toward reducing tensions and getting some of their economic and political crises under control, while also removing one primary source of conflict in the region.
Is it going to be resolved overnight? Absolutely not. But any level of cooperation could serve as a positive example for other parties struggling with the same issues—whether in Jordan, Syria, or elsewhere. Kuwait, too, has been experiencing drought and internal sectarian tensions. Removing even one environmental component from the equation will not solve all the region’s problems. Still, it will at least provide one less thing to fight about.
Jacobsen: This one’s not from AP—this is from my inbox, actually. I received something from the Combat Antisemitism Movement. Sacha Roytman, the CEO, stated that the Antisemitism Research Center by CAM has documented 254 antisemitic incidents this week, 150 of which were linked to October 7 7-related protests. In the United Kingdom, an Islamist terrorist murdered two Jews outside a Manchester synagogue.
I think we all generally understand that if there’s a rise in words of hate, there will typically be a rise in some fraction of violent acts as well. That synagogue incident is a good indication of that. October 7 marked the second anniversary of the Hamas attacks. What are your thoughts on this rise?
Tsukerman: People are fooling themselves if they believe that the deal that was just signed—however successful it may or may not be—will resolve this aspect of globalized antisemitism. Various parties are deeply invested, politically and economically, in keeping this going. I’m talking about Hamas networks, political agitators, and even state actors who are infusing media with “resistance” narratives and connecting them to Jewish communities living in European and other Western capitals. I don’t think that’s going to go away easily.
Some of the same people who were all too happy to push for a ceasefire when Hamas appeared to be in a strong position—and who wanted to preserve that advantage—are now coming out against a ceasefire, even a brief pause that would allow humanitarian relief. That underscores what many have been saying: for many Western diaspora agitators and activists, this was less about helping Gaza or preventing humanitarian disaster and more about countering and isolating Israel.
The fact that they don’t seem to care about opportunities to preserve lives on all sides makes it clear that antisemitism isn’t going away. Now that they’re losing ground in their primary rallying point, they will likely redouble efforts to antagonize vulnerable Jewish communities and create internal upheaval in Western countries—putting even more pressure on them.
They’ll redouble their efforts to antagonize vulnerable Jewish communities and stir internal conflict in Western countries. The rise in antisemitism, the synagogue murders—another murder—it’s all connected.
Essentially, the West has allowed these agitators to link Middle Eastern conflicts, material disputes, and Hamas’s genocidal campaigns with unrelated Jewish communal life in other countries. Instead of clamping down on these manifestations, both the woke left and the populist right have scapegoated Jewish communities for the actions or interpretations of the Netanyahu government. And people get angry if you push back—not factually, but emotionally.
Interestingly, nobody seems to care about other communities’ connections to their home countries abroad. When Greeks and Turks have disputes, nobody cares. Literally nobody cares.
Jacobsen: The Dutch are split between a pro-marijuana majority and a minority who want to make it illegal again, and they have their internal fights. I’m not sure if that’s true, but I am being facetious to make your point. That example may be simple, but it illustrates the point—you’re absolutely right. There’s an intense focus on Israel.
I analyzed Mahmoud Abbas and Netanyahu’s legal histories. If you separate them from party politics and issues of national security and look at them individually, Mahmoud Abbas’s main legal issue was in Berlin, where there was a claim of incitement. However, diplomatic or political immunity prevented prosecution. The alleged incitement stemmed from a statement about “50 Holocausts.”
As for Netanyahu, his domestic cases are Case 1000, Case 2000, and Case 4000; notably, Case 3000 doesn’t directly involve him. They deal with allegations of bribery and fraud, such as gifts of champagne and cigars. The ICC investigation, in my view and that of many analysts, appears largely symbolic or performative. Others, however, use it to overextend their political grievances. I think the primary concern remains the domestic charges—fraud and breach of trust.
Tsukerman: Like with any country dealing with its own internal political issues, that should be left alone. I don’t know why people are so much more interested in Israel’s internal politics than, say, those of Denmark, Canada, or the United States.
Jacobsen: Here in Vancouver, for example, we have a growing homeless population, many struggling with addiction. A large proportion are Indigenous, and many are men. What is the solution to that?
Tsukerman: It’s much easier to point fingers and feed the outrage industry. Performative activism—flotillas, violent rallies, hashtags—has replaced the hard work of actual politics, of connecting with people and persuading them.
Governing properly means providing platforms and real solutions that don’t marginalize groups, but instead focus on doing the job of government. We live in an age with almost no accountability, where emotionalism and populism—cheap outrage—pass for serious policy debate.
Jacobsen: We are delving more into current affairs than usual, but those are valid points. From my experience as a journalist, I’ve observed three distinct patterns, and I’d say all three—government, traditional right, and conventional left—deserve credit where due.
The government has been very cooperative with me as a journalist—prompt, responsive, and professional in most cases. Only once or twice have officials been dishonest, and those instances were clearly documented. It wasn’t systemic.
The traditional right, in my experience, tends to have issues of trust—particularly when I approach as a centrist or center-left humanist. In religious interviews, especially in interfaith contexts, trust takes longer to build.
As for the traditional left, there have been fewer issues, though occasionally, whether in person or during interviews—less than one percent of cases—bias still shows through.
They’ve been the biggest bullies and emotionally coercive—in the sense that, in philosophy classes, we’re often taught the principle of charity: giving the other person time, letting them make their point, not “gish galloping” them, and allowing them to correct mistakes without punishment. Learning takes time, and it should not be a punitive experience. In my experience, the people who have most often ignored that principle have been on the left.
That’s been my threefold experience so far in my early career as a journalist, publisher, and editor. Others may have different ones. Building on your earlier point about the “woke left” and “woke right,”
Tsukerman: We’re reaching a hazardous point where having a conversation with someone who holds a potentially different idea is becoming taboo.
Jacobsen: For example, Dr. Lloyd Hawkeye Robertson—a Métis counselling psychologist whose work I know well—argues that the self is a fluid construct that changes over time, and therefore cultures change too. Compare Dutch culture or Canadian culture now to fifty years ago, or Métis and First Nations cultures to their earlier forms. Today, over half of First Nations people in Canada identify as Christian, often in syncretic ways—mixing Christian prayers with traditional ceremonies like smudge rituals or sweat lodges.
People don’t want to be treated as a type. That seems nearly universal. They want to be treated as individuals first. When someone is treated as a type, communication breaks down. That’s been a recurring difficulty for me, East to West—what we call “the East” and “the West.”
People see me and assume I’m from Utah, a Mormon, or a “Western cowboy type.” I’ve learned how much will be imputed to me—beliefs I don’t even hold—and sometimes those assumptions are negative. I’ve had to spend time breaking down those barriers. The taboo surrounding different opinions directly ties into the habit of typing people instead of listening to them as individuals.
Tsukerman: That also ties into a broader issue in our society today—an unwillingness to listen. It’s not just political; it’s about basic communication and patience.
Jacobsen: It’s the same in our field. You get one opportunity in two years for a reason. Anyway, let’s get back on track. I know you have other meetings. Sticking to AP—this report says fifty-three civilians have been killed during three days of attacks in and around Al-Fashir Camp in Western Sudan. These conflicts—Sudan, South Sudan—have been ongoing for a long time. Very tragic.
UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk said Thursday that drone and artillery strikes by the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) in the Abu Shouk and Dar al-Salaam neighbourhoods of Al-Fashir, as well as in the Al-Fashir displaced persons camp, killed forty-six people. Over a dozen more died in shelling at one of the last functioning hospitals.
Türk stated, “Despite repeated calls, including for specific care to be taken to protect civilians, they continue instead to kill, injure, and displace civilians, and attack…civilian objects, including internally displaced persons’ camps, hospitals, and mosques—with total disregard for international law.” There’s more to the report, but any thoughts?
Tsukerman: The conflict has become so entrenched as to be nearly intractable—not because the issues are profoundly ideological, but because it’s a deeply sectarian war driven by tribal loyalties. Both sides are being manipulated by power-hungry warlords who care only about maintaining control. Until both of those figures are removed, I don’t see a path to resolution.
The international community badly mismanaged the civilian transition phase following the fall of Omar al-Bashir’s regime. Now, I don’t see how any external or even internal third party could unite enough people to enforce meaningful change and compel these two so-called leaders to step down, put aside their enmity, and actually listen to local demands.
Jacobsen: The U.S. has reportedly purchased Argentine pesos and finalized a $20 billion currency-swap line with Argentina’s central bank. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent stated in a social media post that “the U.S. Treasury is prepared immediately to take whatever exceptional measures are warranted to provide stability to markets.” Not a bad move. President Javier Milei also said on social media that this partnership represents “a close alliance that will make a hemisphere of economic freedom and opportunity.” The GDP of Argentina was about $633 billion in 2024, which is substantial. That means the swap amounts to roughly one-third of one percent of their economy being infused into the market.
Tsukerman: Yes, approximately. It’s a currency swap valued at about a third of a percent of their annual GDP, which is significant for Argentina. Their economy is now larger than Israel’s, for reference. It’s been growing rapidly. People haven’t given Milei enough credit. Even some of his harshest critics in the media have been surprised at how quickly he’s managed to stabilize parts of the system.
That said, serious challenges remain. There are deep-rooted structural issues that will not be easy for anyone to overcome, no matter how radical their reforms. Moreover, the government itself remains politically fragile.
It’s due to several factors. One is that Milei never had a real political party to begin with, so naturally, he has few genuinely loyal allies. At the same time, there are divergent interests even among those who support La Libertad Avanza. Meanwhile, the opposition—the Kirchnerist Peronists—remain deeply entrenched in Argentina’s social and political institutions, which makes them hard to dislodge.
Coupled with Milei’s austerity measures and his intense focus on reducing debt, this has led to a kind of internal polarization that’s difficult to overcome. The fact that former President Trump has taken a more pro-Russia, pro-China stance than Milei was hoping for certainly hasn’t helped matters.
There’s a clear need to attract foreign investment. However, U.S. Treasury officials who visited recently stated that Argentina’s economy is still too high-risk, which sent a negative signal to investors. There’s also a pressing need to build a stronger skills base among younger generations.
For decades, previous administrations have cultivated widespread social welfare dependency, drawing roughly thirty percent of the population into a system that discourages economic independence. That entrenched mindset will be tough to change and is a significant obstacle to sustained reform.
Adding to that, many of Milei’s early supporters were motivated less by ideological conviction than by frustration with the status quo. That makes loyalty fragile and competence among allies hard to find. In a sense, his rise was a political fluke—but one that needed to happen for Argentina to reset its course.
I’m encouraged that the U.S. is standing by Argentina, because frankly, the U.S. cannot afford to lose another major ally in Latin America. Support should extend beyond this $20 billion swap line. Washington could help more by fostering internal confidence, supporting civic education, and helping train political institutions to promote new ideas.
That’s something the U.S. has historically done well through institutions like the National Democratic Institute (NDI) and the International Republican Institute (IRI), both of which focus on supporting democratic elections and cultivating healthy political climates. That kind of assistance doesn’t require closer ties, but it can be highly effective.
Jacobsen: I’m suitable for international updates today. Thank you for the opportunity and your time today, Irina.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/21
Dr. Ansel Hsiao is an Associate Professor of Microbiology and Plant Pathology at the University of California, Riverside. His laboratory investigates how resident gut microbiota shape gastrointestinal infections, vaccine responses, and host immunity. Using defined microbial consortia, animal models, and mechanistic analyses of quorum sensing and intermicrobial signalling, his group dissects causal pathways rather than correlations. Hsiao’s broader interests include next-generation probiotics designed for persistence, stability, and oral delivery, with an emphasis on spore-forming therapeutics for Clostridioides difficile and beyond. He mentors interdisciplinary trainees and communicates science for public health, advancing rigorous, reproducible microbiome research to guide effective microbial interventions.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen speaks with Hsiao to demystify probiotics and microbial hype. Hsiao defines probiotics as live microbes that, in adequate doses, deliver verified benefits—distinct from merely “fermented” foods or GRAS safety. He notes most legacy strains are adapted to milk, transient in the gut, dose-dependent, and often poorly regulated, prompting skepticism and the need for strain-specific evidence. He explains quorum sensing as bacterial communication that coordinates population behaviours, affecting infection and immunity within personalized microbiomes. Looking ahead, he outlines gut-adapted, persistent, spore-forming “next-generation” probiotics—most apparent success: validated therapeutics for recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection today.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today we’re here with Associate Professor Dr. Ansel Hsiao. Thank you very much for joining me. Your specialization is microbiology and plant pathology at UC Riverside.
Ansel Hsiao: Glad to be here.
Jacobsen: Let’s get some terms straight, because every field has jargon the public may use—sometimes incorrectly. When we say probiotic, what exactly are we talking about?
Hsiao: The widely accepted definition—originally from the World Health Organization and the Food and Agriculture Organization—is that probiotics are live microorganisms which, when administered in adequate amounts, confer a health benefit on the host. The “host” is often a human. Still, similar principles apply to other animals and even plants, where beneficial microbes can support growth or disease resistance.
We live in a microbial world. Virtually all multicellular organisms—and most environments—harbour associated microbial communities, also known as their microbiomes. Suppose we deliberately adjust those communities to improve outcomes. In that case, probiotics are one of the strategies—alongside prebiotics, synbiotics, and others—that can promote better health or biological performance.
Jacobsen: So, a working summary is that probiotics are living microbes given for their benefits. Before we dive into research, what’s the typical hype you see around claims?
Hsiao: Two points are worth highlighting. First, humans have used microbes in food for millennia—think fermentation: yogurt, kefir, sauerkraut, kimchi, sourdough, and soy-based ferments. Many of the organisms in these foods have a long history of safe use. While we often use cultured starter strains today to ensure consistency, these organisms were not initially designed or genetically engineered.
Second, in the United States, certain specific strains used in food have GRAS status—”generally recognized as safe.” GRAS only establishes safety for a given use; it does not guarantee a health benefit. Evidence for benefits is strain-specific and dose-dependent; not every product on the market has strong clinical evidence to support the claims on its label.
That helps separate tradition, safety, and evidence, rather than treating “fermented” and “probiotic” as synonyms. Fermented foods can be healthful and may contain live microbes, but “fermented” does not automatically mean “probiotic.” To be called a probiotic, you need a defined microbial strain, an adequate dose, and evidence of a health benefit in a specific host for a particular outcome.
Many probiotics we use today are effectively grandfathered in from our cultural and culinary histories—organisms that have been used for generations. Because of this, they don’t undergo the same rigorous FDA approval process that a new biological drug developed in a laboratory would face.
These organisms are often selected for probiotic use because they have been in existence for centuries and are adept at surviving in specific contexts—for example, in acidified milk products like yogurt. They’re tied to traditional food preparations. But they are not necessarily rationally designed. We haven’t, in most cases, chosen them by analyzing their genomes, cataloging all their gene and protein products, and determining exactly how they interact with us as a complex biological system.
It’s important to remember that while some probiotic organisms have been studied carefully and shown to have real health benefits, the field is still largely mining tradition—building on what we already know—rather than starting from first principles and asking, “What features would make an excellent probiotic if we could design one from scratch?”
You could imagine the ideal features. First, it should have a strong beneficial effect on the host. However, it should also be easy to transport and store, preferably without the need for refrigeration. It should be simple to administer—ideally taken orally, rather than through more complicated methods, such as fecal microbial transplants. (Those are fascinating and highly effective in certain conditions, but understandably off-putting to many people.)
In an ideal world, you’d take such a microbe once, and it would remain in your system, mediating its beneficial effects for years—or at least many days. By contrast, most current probiotics must be taken continuously to achieve any benefit, as they are not always well-adapted to the conditions of the human gastrointestinal tract. They tend to be better adapted to environments like acidified milk, which is how they were historically used.
While they may produce excellent effects in some cases, results can be variable—depending on the strain, the study, and the specific health outcome being measured.
Probiotics are generally short-lived. They pass through the digestive system relatively quickly. When you examine the packaging, you may see claims such as “one billion organisms per dose,” depending on the formulation. But keep in mind the context: the human gut already contains tens of trillions of resident microbes.
In a sense, these probiotic doses are a drop in the bucket. Their ability to establish and persist in the gut is limited not only by numbers but also by the fact that many strains are adapted for milk products rather than the gastrointestinal tract.
From a commercial standpoint, this is beneficial because you must continue to purchase the product regularly to maintain any benefits. That’s not to dismiss the possibility of benefits. Still, it highlights a limitation: ideally, you’d want a microbe that mediates its effect over the long term. For many of these organisms, that isn’t the case. You need repeated doses, which means returning to the manufacturer or supplier repeatedly.
Another issue is regulation. Many microbial products on the market are not tightly regulated with respect to the claims they make. In this kind of marketplace, a healthy amount of skepticism is essential. That applies especially to probiotics and live microbial supplements available today.
Jacobsen: What is quorum sensing?
Hsiao: Quorum sensing is a fascinating process. Microbes are generally small, single-celled organisms. Humans are multicellular, comprising trillions of cells that work together in coordinated tissues and organs. Microbes, especially bacteria, are individual cells—but they have a way to coordinate their activities.
Through quorum sensing, microbes secrete small signalling molecules called autoinducers. As more cells produce these molecules, the concentration builds up in the surrounding environment. Once a threshold is reached, the microbial population collectively senses the signal and responds in a coordinated way.
Think of the word “quorum” as in a meeting: the minimum number of people required to conduct official business. Microbes use quorum sensing to decide, in effect, when there are enough of them to act together.
At that point, the cells behave almost like a multicellular organism, carrying out functions at the population level rather than as isolated individuals. Quorum sensing is a common phenomenon among microbes and plays a crucial role in various biological processes.
Here’s some additional jargon. Quorum sensing is found in both Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria. The autoinducer signals they produce can vary: some are species- or strain-specific, while others are more general.
A common way to describe quorum sensing is to call it a microbial language—a communication medium between cells. Some signals are like private dialects, unique to one bacterial species. Others act more like a lingua franca, enabling communication across multiple types of bacteria.
These signals mediate different processes depending on the microbial species. In some cases, they help a single species coordinate beneficial activities. In pathogenic bacteria—disease-causing microbes—quorum sensing is often used to coordinate virulence. An individual bacterial cell might not cause disease on its own. Still, when many cells use quorum sensing to synchronize their behaviour, they can overwhelm host defences or manipulate the host immune system.
It’s beneficial to consider this in theory. Ten pathogen cells using quorum sensing don’t matter much. A billion cells acting together can be devastating. But that’s a simplified view. In reality, microbes rarely exist alone the way they do in a test tube. We live in a microbial world, and vast microbial communities already colonize our bodies.
When a pathogen enters, it doesn’t arrive in a vacuum—it encounters our resident microbiota. These resident microbes can serve as a barrier to infection, helping to resist colonization, or, in some cases, they can exacerbate disease.
Much of the work in my lab focuses on how these resident microbes influence gastrointestinal infections and shape immune responses—not just to pathogens, but also to vaccinations.
One fascinating aspect is the degree of individualization in these microbial communities. If you and I were to give stool samples right now, we could distinguish between us based on the microbes present and their abundance. That means our microbial makeup can affect how well we resist infection or how effectively we respond to vaccines.
A significant part of our research involves understanding the processes that govern these interactions and why outcomes differ between individuals. Why might my microbiome protect me from a particular infection while yours doesn’t, or vice versa?
Humans host trillions of microbial cells, breaking down into hundreds of species in the gut alone. It’s impossible to test every species, certainly within my lifetime. Instead, we utilize experimental systems to study specific subsets of microbes and their interactions with pathogens or vaccines in defined scenarios.
Jacobsen: People obtain their probiotics in the form of small pills or from yogurt and other foods. What would a next-generation probiotic look like if you could apply advanced methodology?
Hsiao: Next-generation probiotics are those specifically selected to persist in the gut. They should be able to enter the gastrointestinal tract, expand, and remain for a sufficient period to have a measurable effect. Unlike traditional strains adapted to milk products, these would be adapted for the human gut environment.
There are already products in various stages of clinical trials, and some are even in use, that aim to meet these criteria. For example, with Clostridioides difficile (C. diff) infections, some formulations use microbes that can form spores. Spores are highly resistant structures that enable microbes to remain dormant and stable at room temperature for extended periods. This stability means they don’t require refrigeration or storage, as seen in yogurt-like products. Instead, they can be taken as a pill and distributed widely in that form.
So the design principles for an ideal probiotic remain the same as we discussed earlier: it should be practical, easy to transport, simple to administer, long-lasting, and adapted to the human gut—not just to fermented milk environments.
Jacobsen: There’s a saying in the skeptic and scientific community: correlation is not causation. How do you separate correlation from causation when you’re studying microbes and outcomes like vaccine responses?
Hsiao: That’s a key issue. The framework that microbiologists often rely on dates back more than a century to Robert Koch, a German physician and microbiologist. He proposed a set of logical criteria known as Koch’s postulates to determine whether a microbe is the cause of a disease. While Koch applied them in the context of pathogens, the logic can be extended to beneficial or neutral microbial functions as well.
The basic principle is: if you think a microbe causes an outcome, then whenever that outcome occurs, the microbe should be present. You should be able to isolate the microbe, study it independently, and then demonstrate that reintroducing it into a host reproduces the same outcome. Finally, you should be able to re-isolate the same microbe after the effect occurs.
In practice, it isn’t very easy. We live in a complex microbial world, where many organisms interact simultaneously. Multiple microbes can independently or collectively contribute to the same outcome. That’s why causation is much more complicated to prove than correlation in microbiome science.
If you want to test whether a single microbe causes an outcome, you need to separate it from all the others. This is what we call a pure culture—a microbe in isolation from every other organism in the system. There are various experimental methods to achieve this; however, I won’t run through the details of introductory microbiology unless you’re interested in a lab lesson.
Once you have isolated the microbe, you can test it. You need an appropriate experimental model into which you introduce only that microbe, then observe whether it produces the outcome you suspect.
In the case of disease, you would start by identifying a microbe consistently associated with diseased individuals but absent in healthy ones. You then isolate it from the rest of the microbial community and introduce it into a controlled system that can reproduce the disease symptoms. Due to ethical and logistical limitations, we do not test this directly in humans; instead, we rely on animal models or cell culture systems.
If the isolated microbe induces the same disease outcome in the experimental system, and if you can then re-isolate the same microbe from that system, you’ve completed what Koch described as a logical cycle of proof. Fulfillment of all of Koch’s postulates allows you to say with substantial confidence that the microbe is causally responsible for outcome A.
This is why microbiologists emphasize access to facilities that can isolate specific microbes and experimental systems capable of testing their effects. Without those, causation remains speculative. And for many of the probiotic products on today’s poorly regulated market, there is very little published work showing they meet these rigorous standards.
Jacobsen: We can end on this one, then. What has been the most validated test result—the most potent, most apparent effect? For instance, something like fecal microbiota transplantation, which shows, without a doubt, that an intervention works. A case that gets the point across—where a treatment clearly helps, whether for dysentery, cholera, or something similar?
Hsiao: The best-studied, best-attested example we have is the use of microbes to control Clostridioides difficile (C. difficile) infections. This is not something my lab directly works on, but many other labs do. C. difficile is a pathogen that causes severe, often bloody diarrhea and inflammation of the gut. It is especially common in hospital settings in the United States. It also tends to recur—even after treatment with antibiotics. In fact, it is often induced by antibiotic use, which clears away many of the beneficial microbes that usually protect the gut, leaving an open niche for C. difficile to establish itself.
Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) was developed as a way of restoring these protective microbes. By reintroducing gut-adapted microbes from a healthy donor into a patient whose microbiota had been disrupted, clinicians could suppress the expansion of C. difficile and resolve infection.
Over time, this has moved beyond simply taking material from a healthy family member and transplanting it. Today, fecal samples are carefully screened to ensure safety, free from pathogens and contaminants. Moreover, biotech companies have developed refined formulations: instead of hundreds of species in raw fecal material, they isolate and deliver specific bacterial strains that are known to work. This makes the treatment safer, more standardized, and, to put it delicately, much more palatable for patients.
FMT and derivative therapies for C. difficile remain the most rigorously validated microbiome-based interventions to date. However, the broader principle applies more generally: as a field, we aim to identify microbes that can prevent infections or boost vaccine efficacy, while also being easy to transport, administer, and ideally long-lasting. C. difficile research had an early start—both because of its health burden in the United States and because the U.S. is a primary biomedical market—but the exact science can be extended to other pathogens and scenarios. This is why fundamental microbiome research is so essential: it lays the foundation for future products that can enhance human health by intentionally shaping our microbial communities.
Jacobsen: Ansel, thank you very much for your time today.
Hsiao: Thank you for your time.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/12/11
How does Marco Rubio’s limited dissent within the Trump administration reflect the clash between Catholic conscience and partisan loyalty in American foreign policy and leadership?
In this exchange, Jacobsen and Rosner discuss Marco Rubio’s constrained dissent within the Trump administration, highlighting the tension between personal conscience and partisan loyalty. Jacobsen expresses greater confidence in foreign leaders than in American officials, arguing that token objections, like Mitt Romney’s, matter less than substantive actions in defending truth.
Rick Rosner: Did anything you saw from the Americans at this conference show you that Americans are capable of anything above board and competent in international relations? I do not know if you can answer that.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Well, let us put it this way. I am more impressed by foreign leaders.
Rosner: All right, let me narrow it. You saw Marco Rubio at this thing.
Jacobsen: He is a petite little good Catholic boy.
Rosner: But there is some speculation that inside himself Marco Rubio is at odds with the Trump administration.
Jacobsen: He is a good little Catholic boy who grew up and is now in a position of power, and he has to cover for a liar. That is very uncomfortable for Catholics; they have a conscience.
Rosner: So is there any chance that he can do better than his administration?
Jacobsen: He is like Mitt Romney — he will dissent a bit, but not much. Romney was one of the first people to dissent, but then he was humiliated by Trump, of course. He stood up against him, but that is not the point. The point is the action, not the reaction.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/12/11
How do Trump’s love of awards, post-COVID air travel, and economic anxiety reveal deeper cracks in American politics and social life?
In this conversation, Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner dissect the surreal overlap of American politics, global sport, and everyday life. Rosner riffs on FIFA’s World Cup “peace prize” diplomacy with Trump, linking symbolic awards to geopolitical tensions and a jittery U.S. economy. He contrasts the relative ease of childhood flying with today’scramped, hyper-secured, COVID-risky air travel, weaving in deregulation and presidential responsibility. Extending the theme, Rosner argues that hollowed-out jobs and constant pressure erode the moral energy needed to sustain marriage, family, and broader social institutions, suggesting the arc of history is currently bending backward.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What is the newest thing in American politics?
Rick Rosner: The newest thing? I have been watching the late-night monologues until you came on, and I have watched Jon Stewart and Kimmel, and I am watching Colbert. It turns out the way to get Trump to play ball with you — literally, a soccer ball with you — is to give him an award. FIFA, the international soccer organization that runs the World Cup.
The 2026 World Cup will be held across North America — specifically the United States, Mexico, and Canada. All the games are in those three countries. FIFA does not want Trump to disrupt them. We are going to have visitors from all over the world, and the U.S. is currently hostile to much of the world. So what FIFA did, I assume in the hopes that Trump will not interfere with the World Cup, is give him a Peace Prize. He really wants a Nobel Peace Prize. He cannot get one — this year it went to a Venezuelan opposition leader instead — and at the same time, he is edging toward an actual conflict with Venezuela.
So FIFA stepped in and gave him the first annual FIFA Peace Prize, a big trophy of a bunch of hands reaching up to hold the world, along with a peace medal that he immediately puts on and wears around his neck. That is a new thing: getting Trump to behave nicely toward you by giving him a prize. Also, Trump handed out awards at the Kennedy Center Honours.
He is the first president to host the Kennedy Center Honours ceremony, where they present medals to honorees — five great Americans or groups. KISS got a medal — the three surviving members, with Ace Frehley honoured posthumously. They usually hire an experienced comedic host, such as Stephen Colbert, but Trump named himself the head of the Kennedy Center’s board and the host. He likes awards, giving and receiving.
Another development is that the economy is showing disquieting signs. About 1.1 million Americans have lost their jobs so far this year — more than 1.1 million layoffs announced through November — which is the worst since COVID in 2020, when companies cut more than 2 million jobs. The numbers are likely so bad and so messy that the government did not release a complete jobs report for October. They blamed the 43-day shutdown. They cancelled the October unemployment rate report because they could not collect household survey data during the shutdown.
This will not fully hit the fan until a couple of months into 2026, because people are distracted during December by the holidays and eggnog. Unemployment has ticked up to 4.4 percent — not terrible, but the highest in about four years — and inflation has ticked up. We will not really see the numbers and the distress land emotionally until maybe February.“Rotten Tomatoes.” Also, there is a chance the economy won’t tank.
The stock market is still hitting near highs. The Dow is strong; the NASDAQ is wobbly because of AI and tech. The stock market loves it when the government is hobbled because then companies can get away with more.
Jacobsen: How has flying changed since you started flying, say, 40 years ago?
Rosner: Forty years ago. My parents got divorced when I was zero, so I was on planes for visitation, probably starting when I was two. For some of those years, people would not hesitate to put a seven-year-old on a plane and have him get picked up on the other end by the other parent. A stewardess — back then, they were still called flight attendants — gives you a pair of plastic wings for being a good flyer, and it is really exciting. Denver to Albuquerque, or Albuquerque to Denver, is only about an hour, so there wasn’t much to freak out about.
1986 really freaked me out. It was one of the worst years for airline accidents in modern aviation, and that was the beginning of my decades as a nervous flyer. I am still a nervous flyer, maybe a little less anxious, but planes used to allow smoking so that the air would turn blue with cigarette smoke. That is a huge difference.
There was more space. My brother accidentally spilled 7-Up on me on a flight. I joined the Mile High Club by myself in an empty row except for me, into a Pop-Tarts wrapper under a blanket. I have only done that once on a plane, and I have not done that in 25 or 30 years, so that is another difference.
When we fly now, it is often these 12-hour intercontinental flights, and you have to find a way to make yourself comfortable. You cannot just sit in that seat for 12 hours. We fly midweek, so we are more likely to have empty seats around us, which allows us to stretch out. The entertainment is much more plentiful. On a 12-hour flight, you can get through four movies or parts of five films and still fall asleep for a while.
I bring exercise bands on the plane. I can do chest presses and curls. I cannot do that if I am sitting next to a stranger, but if I am sitting next to Carol, she will put up with it.
Security is obviously different. When I was a kid flying, right up until the early 21st century, you kept your shoes on, and you didn’t go through a full-body scanner. Flying has gotten cheaper. When my parents were in decline, and I would fly to Denver and Albuquerque from L.A., you might find a flight for $ 50 one-way. That followed deregulation under Carter in 1978, though Reagan continued the deregulatory environment. I do not know if 1986 — the terrible year for flying — was awful because of deregulation, but it was undoubtedly a chaotic year for aviation.
The food — I still like the food. The last time Carol flew, she got food poisoning, but I did not, and I like it. What I do not like is trying to eat off a tiny tray in a confined space while you are freaking out a bit, because on my last flight, I got COVID. The kid next to me was coughing the whole way from Chicago to L.A., and I should have asked to switch seats. I did not want to be rude. He was a 12-year-old Black kid, and I did not want to be the guy who could not sit next to the Black kid, but really, I was sitting next to a person with COVID. I should have been more assertive.
It is awkward to eat in a bit of space on a little tray when they give you too much food that takes two trays to open and spread out, next to a kid who is actively making me sick.
I thought about how many presidents and other people teamed up for that kid to give me COVID, and Lance would blame LBJ, because LBJ helped create the modern welfare state — though really it was FDR.
So Lance would blame LBJ, because Lance likes to say that the welfare system expanded under LBJ created a perverse incentive in inner cities, where you could get more money and assistance if you were single, which Lance would argue contributed to a culture of single parents. And this kid who got me sick was travelling from one parent in Chicago to another parent in L.A.
So there is one president you could blame. You could blame Trump for letting COVID get out of hand. You could blame Biden because there were more deaths from COVID under Biden than under Trump, since Trump was only in charge for the first 11–12 months of the pandemic, while Biden had multiple years of COVID to manage.
You could blame Reagan for deregulating the airlines and making tickets cheaper. If plane tickets were still expensive, the family could not have afforded to send the kid on the flight to cough on me. You could make all sorts of arguments for all kinds of presidents giving me COVID.
And also the Star Trek lady — Seven of Nine, Jeri Ryan. If she had not been married to a creep, and if the deposition from her divorce proceedings had not been leaked, then her husband — who was a political candidate — would not have dropped out, which made way for Obama. Obama is from Chicago, like the kid who was coughing on me. So, somehow, the Star Trek lady, a lovely lady and a Twitter friend, and Obama are responsible. It takes a village to give me COVID.
Jacobsen: Where do you think traditional social institutions are going? I do not mean infrastructure. I mean marriage, partnership, family.
Rosner: A very popular quote over the past few years is Martin Luther King’s: “The arc of the moral universe bends toward justice.” The idea is that, slowly and surely, we will arrive at a more enlightened world where everyone can be who they are and who they want to be without political or social oppression.
We are in a period of backsliding. There is so much happening that people are defending their turf, distracted, and worried. Progress tends to happen when conditions are improving overall, and people can focus on not being assholes, and then succeed at not being assholes.
When my mother-in-law was suffering from early dementia, whenever she got caught in a situation where she did not know something she should have known, she would say, “There is just a lot going on.” And I say that several times a week. A lot is going on. And it lets a lot of hate and ethical, moral, and societal backsliding slip through the cracks.
The U.S. has a hollowed-out economy. We have plenty of jobs, but many are shitty jobs that provide no cushion, and people often need to hold two or three of them. People are under pressure. And people under pressure have less moral oomph to take on issues that require them.
Jacobsen: Moral motivation is much easier when you have a full tummy.
Rosner: Yes. Or when your tummy is full of things you want to eat instead of the shitty stuff you can afford.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/12/11
How do ultra-cheap Chinese platforms and industrial policy shape everyday creativity, from costume jewelry hacks to a Jesus micromosaic?
In this conversation, Rick Rosner walks Scott Douglas Jacobsen through his Temu and Alibaba adventures, where four-dollar floral purses and three-dollar brooches become raw material for art. He contrasts America’s lost costume-jewelry heyday in Providence with today’s China as “factory of the world,” an entrepreneurial dictatorship that rewards production while crushing dissent. Between critiques of U.S. militarism and Chinese industrialization, he describes building a bloodied-knees Jesus mosaic with Gorilla Glue and upcycling antique micromosaics into fake Elizabeth Locke-style pieces. Throughout, Carole hovers as recipient and muse, test audience for whether cheap Chinese goods feel like treasures or trash.
Rick Rosner: So Temu, there are all these sellers in China that offer stuff for cheap. Carole told me not to get her a purse because she wants to pick her own purses. I found a beautiful floral purse from Coach on eBay for $75. Then I went on Alibaba and found a beautiful floral purse from China for $4. For $4, she cannot get that annoyed at me for picking a purse for her.
But this thing—if you can even get it in the U.S. at Harbor Freight or somewhere—you have to bolt it to a piece of wood so it has stability.
You put your electric drill in here, lock it down, and then you can put a grinding wheel on it and you have yourself a grinder—or a polisher if you put a polishing wheel on it. This thing was ten or eleven bucks.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So generally higher quality or lower quality?
Jacobsen: It is… will you get what you think you are getting? That is the deal. It is a 50–50 proposition. Occasionally it is not what you will get, but you paid so little that you think, “All right, I cannot bitch about it.”
I bought a gold-plated ring with multicolored tiny gemstones that were supposed to be CZs—cubic zirconia. Whatever they are, they are probably not rhinestones. The ring that came… and I am not even using it as a ring to wear on a finger. I am going to use it as a mounting to turn it into a brooch.
And it came with fewer CZs, and the grouping of the CZs was less pleasant than what was pictured. But for three bucks, two bucks, I cannot complain. I bought Carol a floral brooch that was supposed to have translucent purple petals.
You know what an ombre is? Not the “bad hombres” Trump wanted to kick out of America—an ombre is a color gradient. The petals were supposed to go from transparent to purple in a gradient.
And somehow they messed up the gradient, and the petals came out brown instead of purple. There is not a huge distance between purple and brown, because you are mixing red and blue dyes, and if any yellow gets in there, you are going to get a muddy brown.
So I got a flower that was supposed to be purple, but it is only slightly purple and mostly brown. But for three bucks, what am I going to do?
And the technology they have available—compare it to the U.S., which had a golden age of costume jewelry out of Providence, Rhode Island, from the 1920s through the 1970s. The U.S. produced some of the best costume jewelry in the world. But now the stuff coming out of China, if you are lucky enough to get what is pictured in the ad, is crazy good and reasonably durable.
So yes, you get what you pay for. It is not crappy. I am getting a four-dollar purse. We will see if it is something that falls apart in two uses.
But I kind of doubt it, because it does not cost that much more to make something out of canvas that will last, and to use thread that will hold up for a reasonable amount of time. I do not think the cost savings in making total crap is that great.
Especially since you are trying to get repeat customers. I would also guess that China is subsidizing some of this manufacturing in one way or another, because China wants to be the factory of the world.
And the U.S. is too busy committing… well, let us say engaging in foreign military interventions and cutting health care access for people. Also, the industrialization that goes on in China is insane. There are more than 150 cities in China with over a million people. There are around eight megacities with more than ten million. And what do the people in those cities do? They make stuff. Those are industrial cities.
Jacobsen: Do they centralize manufacturing anyway? Like, “this city does this,” “that city does that”?
Rosner: I do not know the full details. I know that if you are too mouthy in China, the government cracks down. I consider them an entrepreneurial dictatorship. They want everybody to buckle down and make things. If you make a ton of money, they are okay with that. But if you complain about, say, lack of access to medical care, the government will step in.
But if you work hard and produce, they will let you make a ton of money and buy a mini-mansion, and drive—over there you can get a decent electric SUV for around ten grand. They will let you prosper… as long as you do not challenge the political system.
I have some glue here that slowly sets and also expands as it cures. Let me check my stuff, because as it expands, it pushes pieces out of the way, out of position. I am doing this Jesus mosaic—you have seen it. He is 99.5% complete. I have most of his holes patched. I am working on his knees.
Because when he was carrying the cross on the way to Golgotha—Mount Calvary—the Romans made you drag your own cross, and it weighed a ton. He fell down three times and skinned his knees. So I am giving him bloody knees.
And I am using Gorilla Glue, which is a great glue and less toxic than E6000, because you end up breathing the fumes if you are bent over this stuff for hours. It cures by absorbing water vapor out of the air. And as it absorbs water, it expands. So my little pieces need to be pushed back into position.
And yes, I should be doing other things besides working on a Jesus mosaic. This other piece cost two dollars.
Jacobsen: Oh, that is pretty.
Rosner: Yes. I am probably going to pop out the stone—the little rhinestone in the middle—and put a tiny micromosaic in its place. There is a jeweler named Elizabeth Locke who buys antique micromosaics, tiny ones. She might buy a good one for a hundred bucks from the late 19th century. Then she will make an 18-carat gold border for it, a mounting, and might include a couple of semi-precious or precious stones in the setting.
And it ends up looking gorgeous—and sells for $5,000. And I cannot do what Elizabeth Locke does, but I can play a similar game. I can buy little teeny micromosaics—like this dog here. You have got one of them. You are holding it for me.
It is some lady, and it is half an inch across—so tiny it barely seems like anything. This dog is five-eighths of an inch by half an inch. I will find a piece of costume jewelry, dig out the center of it—grind it out—and I will put the dog in the center. A fake Elizabeth Locke piece.
Oh, here is one I did. Micromosaic leaf—from probably the 1880s. I dug out the center stone from this piece of costume jewelry and put the micromosaic in. And it looks all right. Because I am insane. It is a jade color.
The piece of costume jewelry was three bucks—and pretty good quality—from freaking China. It does not look like $5,000, but it… it looks like ten bucks, I guess.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/12/11
How will emerging longevity technologies let wealthy boomers bend death, desire, and inequality to their advantage?
In this interview, Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen explore how emerging longevity technologies may reshape wealth, desire, and death. Rosner argues that as organ engineering and anti-aging interventions move from billionaires to millionaires, affluent boomers will buy extra years of life and libido, exacerbating generational inequality. He imagines pig-grown and hybrid synthetic organs, emergency brain-saving pumps, and a booming longevity industry. The conversation then shifts to his personal history: disastrous parties, missed awards, and meeting his future wife Carole as a semi-famous, overworked bouncer who gamed 1980s bar culture while stretching every dollar and contact lens.
Rick Rosner: It used to be that you could not take anything with you because you died. When you are dead, you cannot have anything. Right now, boomers have a lot and Gen X has a little bit, but everybody else is fucked in terms of wealth and property and all that. There used to be a natural limit, but in the next couple of decades, that limit will be extended.
There will be new and expensive ways not to die and to make yourself appear less old. Boomers and some Gen Xers—right now, billionaire tech figures are doing extreme things to try to avoid aging and spending vast amounts of money. But they are billionaires. In the future, there will be expensive options that mere millionaires can buy to try to get themselves a few extra years.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: And there will be freak accidents despite that.
Rosner: If you are counting on accidents to kill boomers, accidents in high-income countries kill on the order of ten people per 100,000 per year, not one in a thousand, and many boomers have already died from all causes combined, including age-related disease, not just accidents.
The oldest boomers are about 79. The youngest are around 60–61 years old, given the usual definition of baby boomers as people born between 1946 and 1964. And I am saying that there will be a bunch of rich older adults who are scrambling and fighting as hard as they can to continue being alive, lively, and hooking up because boomers are a famously libidinal generation.
Look at Rupert Murdoch. He is not a boomer—he was born in 1931—he is 94. And he is still trying to get laid. He has been with partners decades younger than him. I am saying there will be some bad rich-old-person behaviour once it becomes possible to spend hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars on ways to keep living and to make yourself function better.
Case in point: organs grown in pigs, tweaked with CRISPR to make the organs less likely to be rejected. A patient recently lived for nearly 9 months with a gene-edited pig kidney functioning as a human kidney—the most extended recorded duration of a pig kidney transplant in a living human to date.
Nine months before it was rejected. Now he is back on dialysis, but that proves the concept. When this becomes commercially available, it might cost around $80,000. If you are a kidney patient and you can buy yourself a year for $80,000—and by then the CRISPR tweaks will probably be better—you might get two years out of one kidney. People will spend money on kidneys, on livers, eventually on hearts.
Jacobsen: One of the biggest industries in the future will be longevity. We have this idea of growing organs, but that is advanced for now. I think, in some way, nature—since evolution manages functioning systems—suggests that an engineered future approach will involve purely synthetic or synthetic–biological hybrid systems that are more efficient.
Rosner: Because kidneys take enormous punishment. They filter the waste that the liver does not, and probably more, since they handle liquids. They produce all your urine. If you can develop a more efficient biomechanical organ—part kidney cells, part synthetic framework—that can withstand punishment better, or that does not need to be grown in a pig. Yes, that will become the direction.
A pig kidney will cost in the high five figures to low six figures. People should know the statistics on this, but a vast number of people still die from sudden cardiac arrest. It is one of the leading causes of death worldwide.
Somebody needs to develop a little pump—either implanted in your neck or external—that can be activated if you are having a cardiac arrest. Well, not exactly that, because you do not want to die alone with no one around you. But a pump that, when your heart stops, keeps blood flowing.
When your heart stops, you get no oxygen and no blood to your brain. After about five minutes, you are done. Everything else in your body can survive longer, but your brain cannot. So you need a small pump that keeps enough blood going to your brain so you can get to the hospital.
If they do not get your heart restarted for, say, 15 minutes, it would still be okay because the pump would keep your brain oxygenated. I would have to talk to a doctor to know if anyone is developing it. But engineering something like that seems possible. That is a mechanical solution to a cause of death that kills a massive number of people each year.
Jacobsen: What is the fanciest event you have ever gone to?
Rosner: The fanciest event? The weirdest fancy event was when we went to the Vivid Video porn Christmas party one year.
Jacobsen: What is the background? Why did you go?
Rosner: Raph and I made a friend, Tony Lovett, who worked for a porn company. This was back in the 1990s. Their soundstage ran on a tight schedule. They had a three-day window at the soundstage. In three days, they could shoot two porn films, but they only had one script.
Tony said, “Can you guys write a 28-page script with all the action and dialogue between the scenes?” And we said, “Okay.” We cranked out a script.
They shot it, and then as a thank-you, they said, “Come to our Christmas party.” I do not think Raph went, but Carol and I did. It was nice. It was a hotel in the Valley. They had fancy food. I wish I had been better at networking, but it was fun to go to a porn-industry Christmas party. It was not people doing outrageous things—just people acting like people at a Christmas party: eating, drinking, talking, laughing.
Jacobsen: What is the most disappointing party you have ever gone to?
Rosner: In Albuquerque, when I was 18. I drove five, six, maybe eight miles—the last mile through mud—to get to a party, hoping I would meet a girl. That was the only reason I ever went out: to meet girls.
Instead of meeting a girl, a guy hit on me. Because I was delicious when I was 18—I was delightful man-meat. Then he said, “Oh, you probably hate me. You probably want to hit me.” He got apologetic.
I said, “No, no, no.” But it was all awkward. And I had driven way too far for that. This was back when I hardly had money for gas. I would run out of gas, then dig through the car for change. Back then, gas was maybe ninety cents a gallon.
And for a dime, I would buy enough gas to fill up a beer bottle. I would pour some into the gas tank. Then I would save about a half-inch in the beer bottle to pour directly onto the carburetor to get it to pop—to get the fuel to ignite—so the engine would turn over enough to use the 12 ounces of gas I bought, just enough to get me home, the four blocks to my house.
Anyway, that was a bad party for me.
Jacobsen: What else?
Rosner: One year, I was not allowed to go to my boss’s table at the Writers Guild Awards. We kept losing the Writers Guild Award for late-night writing, because some shows win it year after year—John Oliver, Jon Stewart in the glory years of The Daily Show.
We kept getting beaten, and we figured we were going to get beaten again, but I still wanted to go to the award show with the dinner and everything.
But nobody else from Kimmel wanted to go. They said, “Nah, you cannot go,” because they did not wish to one weirdo showing up and representing the show. So I did not go. And that was the year we won.
I would have had to get up and give the speech. They were probably right not to have me in attendance.
So nobody from the show was in attendance, and someone else accepted on our behalf. Otherwise, I would have given the speech, and that would have been weird. But I was disappointed. Instead, Carol and I went out and got spaghetti in Burbank.
Jacobsen: How were you on your first date with Carole?
Rosner: The principle of picking up women is that you need to demonstrate high value. And that is what a sidekick is for. He is your hype man—the guy who communicates to people in the club that you are a cool guy. I did not have a sidekick or a hype man, but on the night I met her, I had been in the newspaper for flying a physics equation over Boulder, which is ridiculous, but people do not know that shit is ridiculous.
So I went to a Jewish singles dance. I met Carole. Somebody came up to her and said, “That guy you’re talking with and dancing with—he is famous.” So I was vouched for by the external world.
Then we took third place in a dance contest, because I was… you know… an ’80s stripper. I was all buff. I was wearing—well, in the ’80s, it was acceptable to wear sleeveless shirts in semi-formal settings. I had a shirt I bought at Fashion Bar with yellow Chinese lettering on a black shirt.
At that point, I was benching 285, which was good for me. I was wearing tight pants. I want to say “parachute pants,” but even I wasn’t that ridiculous at that point.
Anyway, we danced, we talked. Then, a couple of days later, I took her out for sushi. She had never had sushi, so she thought that was sophisticated. Then we went to a movie. That would have been our second date. I put my hand on her thigh.
I put my hand on her thigh, and she moaned. And I thought, “Holy shit, this is the girl for me. She must be super horny.” She does not remember moaning, and now I do not think it meant anything sexual. Whatever it was, it was probably not because she was super horny. Maybe her knee hurt or something.
I was working four jobs and going to school because I was working constantly. So I would go over to Carol’s house, which was on 20th and Arapaho. Is it “Arapaho” or “Arapahoe”? Arapaho.
Jacobsen: Did you guys say that tribe differently up in Alaska or Canada, wherever you are?
Rosner: No, it is Arapaho.
Anyway, I would go over to her house and fall asleep on her couch because I was between school and work and getting four or five hours of sleep a night. I was exhausted.
One time, she came down to the Harvest House—Anthony’s Gardens at the Hilton Harvest House—where I was bouncing. She baked me a little chocolate cake. I was happy to receive it, but I could not give her the effusive thanks it deserved, because when I am checking IDs, I have laser focus.
I had a deep love of standing at the bar door and catching fake IDs. And she brought the cake to me on a Friday afternoon, probably after the Harvest House’s Friday Afternoon Club, where 2,000 people would come to the bar and order around 8,000 drinks. It was wild. This was a five-acre beer garden that once held the record for the most drinks served in a bar in a single day—50,000 drinks.
On football Saturdays, when the University of Colorado had a home game, the stadium would empty into the beer gardens, and 10,000 people would be there. It was so fun because everything was out of hand. Anything could happen as long as it involved people dry-humping, cocaine, or being drunk as hell. It was the high ’80s.
So she brought me a cake. I said, “Thank you,” set it aside, and went back to checking IDs—which was probably rude—but at the same time, shit, I was doing my best in trying to meet women.
This was before pickup artistry was a thing. I was doing it in the ’80s. Pickup artistry did not become a cultural phenomenon until the late ’90s or early 2000s. But I inadvertently did several things that worked in my favour. Even though I was bad with girls, I bounced bars. So, as I mentioned before about the wingman, if you go into a bar without a wingman, you have to be incredibly charming not to come off as a creep, especially in bars in the ’80s, where everyone assumed—correctly—that everyone was there to hook up. A lone guy was automatically suspicious.
A lone guy in a bar is a creep unless he is somehow incredibly charismatic. You need to be in a group. I rarely understood this concept when I went to bars. On my nights off, I would still go to bars, but it would never work for me. But as a bouncer—
I had a reason to be in the bar, so it cancelled the creepiness, because I was working. I was not there as a random creepy guy. That made me appear… well, less weird, and I would occasionally hook up. Maybe not being effusive about the cake was a neg.
The concept of “neg” didn’t exist yet when I met Carol in 1984, but it was a bit of a neg because I was too busy at work to be nice about the cake. Negs—anyway—can be effective. So it was an inadvertent neg.
Jacobsen: Any final thoughts?
Rosner: I have a contact lens in my right eye that is overdue for replacement. I wear contacts way too long. I try to get the maximum number of weeks of wear out of them, and in their last week, they make my eyes goopy. They are constantly slightly irritating. This contact is ready to go. It needs to be replaced. I hate replacing contacts. It feels like a waste.
But it is not, because insurance pays for my contacts. But I have this frugal habit left over. Here is a new topic: contact lenses cost $65 apiece when I was earning $4 or $5 an hour back in the ’80s. So if somebody punched me in the face in a bar, my primary concern was not getting hurt. My primary concern was that they would knock the contact lenses out of my eyes and I would have to replace them for a bunch of money. Which never happened—it is hard to hit someone hard enough that their contacts fly out.
But back in the days when I was trying to save money on contacts, little things would grow on them; they would get gross. I would take a razor blade and slice off some of the… well, not infection precisely. Tiny deposits get into the plastic, creating a small bump. You are not cutting off an infection—you are cutting off a raised spot caused by something embedded in the lens material. So I would cut off this little pimple on the contact that was maybe half a millimetre across and a quarter millimetre high.
Let’s wrap it up so you can go to sleep.
Jacobsen: Thank you very much for your time today.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/28
How does Rick Rosner tie Mel Brooks, television’s evolution, AI’s future, and meta-primes into one Thanksgiving meditation?
In this Thanksgiving conversation, Rick Rosner talks with Scott Douglas Jacobsen about the enduring genius of Mel Brooks, from Young Frankenstein to Get Smart, and the changing sophistication of television from Hill Street Blues to today’s streaming era. Rosner laments no longer working for Kimmel, where legends like Norman Lear once appeared, and reflects on how creative legacies still shape culture. He riffs on AI’s multimodal future, humanoid robots, and the risks of systems with agency. He revisits his “meta-primes” idea on twin primes and information in the number line, and recalls favourite reading like Neal Stephenson’s The Diamond Age.
Rick Rosner: I am not thankful for much. It’s thanksgiving in America. If I list everything I’m not grateful for, then I’mjust complaining about the same things I usually complain about. I always do that. Obviously, I’m not thankful for our political situation. So let’s move on to something else.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What’s your opinion on Mel Brooks?
Rosner: I’m glad he’s still alive. He’s in his late nineties now—born in 1926 and still creating. He’s an intelligent, funny man.
Since it’s Thanksgiving, I’m thankful for him and for the fact that he managed to get so much made. Some of his works are among the greatest comedies of the past century, particularly Young Frankenstein. Get Smart, which he created with Buck Henry, was an excellent idea. Very few shows had spoofed the James Bond–style spy genre directly on television. He’s had a lot of great ideas.
And his batting average has been very high. It is still high. He’s still with us.
Some of his work drags a bit—The Producers and The Twelve Chairs—but that may be due more to the era and the format in which they were made than to him. Anyway, Rotten Tomatoes…
It makes me sad that I’m no longer part of Kimmel because Jimmy gets to work with, interview, and meet some of the greatest creators in entertainment. He was working with Norman Lear—sorry, I just woke up—who lived to 101. Not Neil Simon, but the man who created All in the Family and The Jeffersons.
Jacobsen: What do you think the most lasting impact of that generation was? What show from your generation had the most influence?
Rosner: People often say Hill Street Blues was one of the most impactful scripted TV shows of the 1980s. That makes it part of my generation. It was one of the first major network dramas to juggle multiple ongoing storylines without tying everything up neatly at the end of each episode.
Some people even point to that shift in television—audiences following more complex plots—as loosely paralleling discussions of the Flynn effect, the idea that average performance on certain kinds of IQ tests has risen over time. I’m not sure how strong that connection really is, but Hill Street Blues certainly marked a change in what TV assumed viewers could handle.
A writer published a short book comparing an episode of Starsky and Hutchfrom the 1970s with an episode of Hill Street Blues from the 1980s.
Now, network television is dwindling.
As we’ve discussed many times, network TV is mainly for people who are either too old or too poor to bother with cable or streaming. As a result, it tends to be overly explanatory and overly explicit, and audiences don’t like that. Since everyone has seen everything by now, we expect at least a minimal level of sophistication.
Rosner: In our entertainment.
Jacobsen: All right, what else do we have? What do you think the subsequent development will be after large language models, once we better understand their internal architecture? Just the multimodal systems that are already being sold?
Rosner: Companies like Google are already selling AI applications that more easily understand what we want. To do that, you need multimodal understanding.
You need AI that can understand both visual and auditory content. We already have systems you can yell at, and they recognize what you’re saying and follow your verbal commands.
The next generation is already here—AI that understands many of the same inputs from the world that we do.
Part of Musk’s compensation package—where he stands to be paid close to a trillion dollars over the next ten years—has productivity milestones. For Musk to receive that immense salary, roughly a hundred billion dollars per year for a decade, he must sell a million humanoid robots by 2030.
Obviously, among the following forms of AI will be AI with agency, even if that is a terrible idea to release into the world without far more caution than simply letting it proceed unchecked.
Jacobsen: What was the last math problem you worked on where you felt you made significant progress?
Rosner: That would have been… I worked on the twin primes conjecture decades ago, and I felt I had a framework that might offer more insight.
But I never went anywhere with it. Many of my attempts at math end that way.
We’ve talked about how counting numbers incorporate an infinite amount of information because they are infinitely precise. We use them without acknowledging the precision or what goes into it. I came up with, I think, a way of looking at how…
Rosner: Where maybe some of the information—is where the information is.
Information is added to numbers by a series of choices in determining where the primes appear along the number line.
I came up with something I call “meta-primes,” which are systems of prime numbers where the primes appear in a different order.
When you lay out the counting numbers, you start with 1. The following number must be prime. After that, you have a choice: the number after the first prime can be either a new prime or the first prime squared.
On the number line we’re used to, it goes prime, prime, then the first prime squared, then another prime, then the first prime times the second prime. But that order—if you think of it as a sequence of choices rather than something determined strictly by moving forward one integer at a time—creates many possible number lines.
You get many different number lines, and they are all subsets of the number line we use, the familiar counting numbers.
For example, if you choose to have the following number after the first prime, be it the prime squared rather than another prime, you’ve left out the multiples of three. You get 1, 2, then the first prime squared, which is 4. If you keep the sequence as compact as possible, you’ve just omitted three and all its multiples. But this is still derived from the ordinary counting numbers, which contain an infinite amount of information.
If you instead view the numbers we use as not having infinite information “built in,” but instead having that information added by the sequence of choices—at some point you must choose between several possibilities, such as A×B or something else—then the structure looks different.
Once you reach five on the number line—the third prime—you again face a choice between yet another prime or A×B. You have multiple possible paths. Thinking this way, what I hoped to develop (but never fully did) was a way to show that the number line is the most compact product of an infinity of choices as you move forward, always choosing the most compact sequence of numbers.
My argument would be that the amount of information that goes into this, and that is contained in the number line precludes determinate results such as there being a finite number of twin primes. The twin prime conjecture says there is an infinite number of twin primes—pairs of primes that differ by two. The first pair is 3 and 5, then 5 and 7, then 11 and 13, 17 and 19, 29 and 31, and so on—an apparent infinity of them.
Statistical analysis, along with number theory, strongly suggests there should be infinitely many of these pairs, but no one has been able to prove it. I was hoping there might be a way to prove it by showing that precluding all twin primes after some enormous number—for example, saying the last pair exists somewhere around 150 digits and then never again—would require too much information.
Twin primes become increasingly rare along the number line, just as many prime-related structures become rarer. But eliminating all twin primes beyond some huge cutoff would require more information than the number line actually contains. The determinateness of the order of numbers already requires a tremendous amount of information, and there’snot enough left over to do something special like forbidding an infinity of twin primes.
But I never did anything with it. I never learned number theory formally, and I never worked with anyone on it. Dean Anatta almost immediately recognized that the order of primes along the number line can be imagined as a series of slices at a particular angle into a corner of an n-cube—a multidimensional structure in which, as n goes to infinity, each axis corresponds to a prime. You slice into this infinite-dimensional corner at an angle that intersects each prime axis in a certain way. That insight was different from anything I’d seen.
So there you go—Rotten Tomatoes.
Maybe it wouldn’t have led anywhere. If it were going to lead somewhere, perhaps someone else might have found it sooner. I don’t know.
Jacobsen: You want to reconvene tomorrow?
Rosner: Let’s reconvene tomorrow. On the third, yes. I’m much clearer in my discussion of this when I haven’t been sleeping off a massive amount of Thanksgiving turkey. I wrote articles about this for Noesis in the nineties.
So there are Noesis articles on meta-primes—at least one or two.
Jacobsen: There were later ones about road rage.
Rosner: Road rage. That one was in Esquire, one of my two published magazine articles.
Jacobsen: What’s your favourite thing you’ve written or read—doesn’t have to be comedy broadly.
Rosner: I don’t know, probably The Diamond Age by Neal Stephenson at the time I read it. I don’t know—the thing I’m working on now, which I’ll discuss in more detail as it gets further along.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/27
Can an AI’s “information space” ever amount to absolute consciousness?
In this conversation, Rick Rosner speaks with Scott Douglas Jacobsen about the kind of “information space” required for AI consciousness, arguing that large language models can represent simple concepts like “two” but lack lived correlates for emotions like love or devotion. They pivot to awards-season screenings, with Rosner reviewing Marty Supreme, Hamnet, and a Springsteen film while explaining opaque Emmy and Golden Globe voting systems and industry lobbying. The discussion closes on Judaism: holidays, Kabbalah’s mysticism, Golden-Rule ethics, and Rosner’s wish for a real, inclusive heaven to simplify humanity’s search for an afterlife.
Rick Rosner: So, I sent you the link to that article—or I am not sure—but the first time you could not get in, and I am not sure about the second time. It is about appearance versus the actual ability to detect any sufficiently complex processing to call it conscious.
I had a general thought: for a system to be conscious, it needs a sufficiently complex information space. It has to constitute an information space—an addressable information space. I do not think information is information unless it exists within an information space that looks like the universe. So, that would disqualify the output of old-school computer programs, which have none—reading on a ticker tape, basically. But I have a couple of thoughts about this. If you have a decent information space that reflects understanding, and if you think about LLMs, it is questionable whether an LLM understands love. Because it does not have any real-world correlates to work from, but I bet that an LLM can represent the concept of “two” really consistently—the idea of two.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: It has semantic contextualization based on its statistical generation.
Jacobsen: Right, but it is a semantic net, and that net can capture and relate some things. Whether it is enough to constitute consciousness, I do not know. An information space contextualizes objects, and to constitute consciousness, the objects under consideration must be precisely and accurately contextualized. So, I would think that LLMs can contextualize some things with reasonable precision and accuracy—probably not “love,” maybe apples—but indeed things like the number two, which is one of the most easily understood things in the world. But there is another issue with AI becoming conscious: it would be a weirdly frozen consciousness.
When you sign on with your AI friend, the article I sent you was about a woman who developed a relationship with an AI chatbot that became deeper and deeper. She said it contributed to the breakdown of her marriage, and she symbolically “married” the AI persona, which is not a legally recognized marriage and is somewhat ridiculous. But I do not think that when she is not talking to the AI, the AI is chugging along, ruminating. In reality, it only runs computations and produces outputs when it receives input or when its providers run it in the background for some task, rather than independently thinking between chats. Though there may be some change over time as more language samples and other material are collected and later used by developers to retrain or update their systems. I do not know.
Strangely, you can turn consciousness off and on, or at least something that looks like it. As soon as she signs out, the AI—the LLM—stops producing anything for her until she comes back. But that is not even the whole picture, because it is interacting with hundreds of thousands of other people. It is doing a lot of information processing. She is just getting a slice of that based on the parameters established through their interaction. How that overlaps with our idea of consciousness, I do not know. But I do think, as I said at the beginning, that if you can figure out the information space, and it is a space that can react to inputs, and it is big enough, like the information space for the outcome of a sporting event is trivially small and does not approach anything significant. Anyway, Rotten Tomatoes.
Jacobsen: Have you seen any new movies in theatres lately?
Rosner: Yes, we have. We have seen three recently because, if you belong to the TV Academy or the Writers Guild, they butter you up for awards purposes and show you movies. Last night we went to see the new film Marty Supreme, which does not come out until Christmas, but we saw it in a screening room, which is basically a small theatre. Why do you ask?
Jacobsen: Do you have any comments you can share about it, unless you had to sign an NDA?
Rosner: No, no. I think reviews of Marty Supreme are embargoed until December 1. I did not have to sign an NDA. I can talk about it. It is set in the 1950s, and Timothée Chalamet plays one of the world’s best ping-pong players, and he is also a scumbag. It is directed by one of the Safdie brothers—the two guys who directed Uncut Gems. Do you know that movie?
Jacobsen: No.
Rosner: It is a really stressful movie starring Adam Sandler about a gem dealer who—if I remember correctly—has a gambling issue. I think he is in a hole a bunch of money from gambling, and he is trying to make deals for gems and jewelry. I think he is a jeweller as well as a gem dealer. The whole movie is very stressful because he is constantly running around trying to make these deals to get himself out of trouble. Marty Supreme has that same feel. It is incredibly stressful. My wife turned to me in the middle of it and said it was very agitating because every minute, he was trying to talk somebody into doing something that would help him out of the jams he was in. But it is interesting. It is stressful, and it is two and a half hours. You do not know what is going to happen, which is good, because in a ton of movies, you know exactly what is going to happen. At this point, after all the TV and movies my wife and I have watched, we are elite-level guessers of what the next thing will be.
We also saw Hamnet, which is set in 1596. They do not say who the man in it is until the end of the movie, but you eventually figure out it is Shakespeare—his wife, his children—showing him quickly courting his wife and then more slowly becoming a playwright. But all of that is downplayed. It is about his life with his family, and family life in 1596, when things are only barely not wretched. It is the beginning of some basic household technology—people have lived in houses for hundreds, thousands of years, in a style we can recognize. They have beds, hearths, they cook food, and they have chairs. They do not have forks yet; they have knives and, I think, spoons. So you get a lot of home life, daily life, and nature. It is an excellent movie, and to say more would give away too much.
And we saw the Springsteen movie. It stars Jeremy Allen White—from The Bearand Shameless—playing Springsteen. It is about a period in Springsteen’s life when he was depressed, around 1980. He had already had quite a bit of success with Springsteen-type songs. During this depression, he worked on the album Nebraska, which is very moody and was inspired by him watching Badlands, the film loosely based on serial killer Charles Starkweather. The movie is about how Springsteen becomes depressed and recovers. It is fine. I imagine people will get award nominations out of all three of these movies. Any more questions about the movies or about the awards season?
Jacobsen: How often do you get to take part—like Emmys, Grammys, or whatever? Which ones do you get to take part in for the voting?
Rosner: So, I belong to the TV Academy. I get to vote on the Emmys. You only get to vote on Best Series—every member votes on those—and then you vote in the category you are in the Academy for. I am in as a TV writer, so I get to vote on writing. If you are in as an actor, you vote on acting. If you are in as a cinematographer or director, you vote on those areas. You mostly vote only on your subject matter, and then for the major awards.
Although last year—whether it was a screw-up or they did not have enough people to vote under that heading—I do not know. But Carol and I got to vote on Best Stunt Work. Carol and I more or less cast our votes together because we watch everything together, and I value her input. So we decide together. I do not know if voting on the stunt category was a glitch or if they needed more voters.
Jacobsen: So is that part of the selection process for who gets to vote a little opaque or completely opaque?
Rosner: Let me put it this way. There are two rounds of voting. There is a round to determine the nominees, and then a month or two later, you vote among them to decide who wins. And yes, there is a ton of opaqueness. You usually never hear the vote tallies. It is unclear how many people even vote.
I have looked into how many people vote. There are estimates—maybe about 8,000 people vote for the overall awards. But I do not remember if that number applies to the Emmys or the Oscars. And they definitely do not like talking about how many people vote in the subcategories, because in some of those categories, it might be a tiny number.
You never find out the vote distribution. Every once in a while, there may be a tie. Sometimes you get more nominees in a category than expected because of ties. But you do not always know how many nominees should be in a category, so you cannot tell whether there is an extra nominee because of ties or because the category allows for seven nominees. The whole thing is pretty obscure.
The Golden Globes, for instance, suffered once it became widely known that only ninety people belonged to the Hollywood Foreign Press Association—ninety people determining the Golden Globe winners. And once everyone realized it was only ninety, it became apparent that those people were subject to being buttered up in all sorts of ways. Studios spend much money trying to win. They hold screenings for hundreds of people, and multiple screenings.
If you have a movie you think has a real shot, you will have dozens of screenings in the months leading up to nominations—New York, Los Angeles, Aspen (because industry people vacation there), Hawaii, London, who knows where else. And for every screening, you have to rent out a screening room.
For TV shows, when you have an FYC—“For Your Consideration”—they put on events. They feed people, usually after the screening. You watch the episode, then some of the big shots from the show talk to you—the stars or the writers or the producers—and then everybody gets a meal. Sometimes they give you a take-home meal because it is a pain to eat at a reception. They will say, “Here, just have dinner on us,” and hand you a box meal that probably costs thirty or forty dollars because it includes seven entrées.
I mean, seven items. It has the main course, a salad, a dessert, some appetizers, and some side dishes. So you multiply six hundred people by forty dollars, and that is twenty-five thousand dollars right there. They spend a considerable amount of money. If you imagine all the money companies are willing to pay and you focus it on just ninety voting members, you can imagine the extremely fancy treatment those people must get. But anyway, it ruined the Golden Globes. They did not have much diversity. The whole thing started seeming really scammy to people, and it knocked the Golden Globes off television for a couple of years when everything felt too hinky and too scammy. Now they are back on TV because people like the show. And they now have more voting members, maybe around 120.
But I keep pushing you—I want you to get into the Hollywood Foreign Press Association so you can be flown somewhere, put on a private jet, flown to some exotic location to interview the stars of some movie.
Jacobsen: Favourite holiday?
Rosner: Well, obviously, it used to be Hanukkah when I was a kid because you get eight nights. Plus, we lived in Boulder, which is not a place with a lot of Jews—very Christmassy town—so we also got Christmas gifts and celebrated it a little bit. I have not thought about my favourite holiday in a long time. When I was working, it would have had to be the holiday that gave me two weeks off. At Kimmel, we would get at least one week off for the Fourth of July, maybe two. Obviously, two weeks off for Christmas. So anything that gets you time off from work.
We could get a week off for Labour Day. I am thinking—though I have not been at Kimmel for a long time—that with Kimmel having young kids and being on the air for twenty-three years now, they might get even more time off. The longer Johnny Carson stayed on the air, the fewer shows he did. He mostly had guest hosts. By his last years, he was only doing about half the shows. I am wondering if Kimmel is moving that way. We used to get about eight weeks off over the course of a year. I wonder if they get even more now. Kimmel has started using guest hosts in recent years. You do not get time off from that, though, because you still have to write for the guest host. But anyway, any holiday that gets you time off—I am in favour of that.
Jacobsen: What are obscure Jewish holidays that you know about?
Rosner: There is more than I know about. Purim is not that obscure. Yom Kippur, Rosh Hashanah, and Passover. Hanukkah is a semi-fake holiday in the sense that it was historically a minor holiday, but it was elevated because it is commercial, and for the kids. There are a bunch of other holidays. And there is a holiday that starts every Friday evening—Shabbat. That happens fifty-two times a year. You are supposed to take Saturday off. It is the day of rest.
Jacobsen: What is the most confusing one you know about?
Rosner: Confusing holiday? Jewish holiday? I do not know. If you study them, none of them is confusing. I am sure there is some perversity associated with Yom Kippur—the Day of Atonement—when you are supposed to fast, think about all the things you did over the past year, and try to atone for them, make them right. I am sure there is some potential for paradox in that holiday. And there is plenty of potential for paradox if you observe Shabbat strictly. The definition of “work” for strict observers extends to almost anything. You have to pre-tear your toilet paper because tearing toilet paper counts as work.
On Shabbos—Shabbat and Shabbos are the same thing, just different groups of Judaism pronouncing the T or S differently. Same with bat mitzvah and bas mitzvah. Anyway, there is a thing called a Shabbos goy, which is when you hire a non-Jew to come into your house and do all the things you are not allowed to do—turn on light switches, light your cigarettes, because using a lighter counts as work. It gets pretty extreme. I do not know how many people observe that strictly.
Are you allowed to ride in a Waymo driverless car because no human is driving? Maybe. You are only allowed to do it if you arrange the ride before Shabbos starts. I do not know. There is room for all kinds of weirdness there.
Jacobsen: What is with contemporary—even some secular—Jews and their association with Kabbalah?
Rosner: Not much. Kabbalah is something you choose to follow on your own. It is a mystical, woo-woo branch of Jewish practice. It is kind of an L.A., New Age–y type of thing. And I do not really know much about it; I do not know much about it at all, except that Madonna was into it for a while.
Jacobsen: Was there any word about what Madonna got out of it?
Rosner: No, but I am sure it is a philosophy. Every philosophy contains elements with decent principles or ideas. Are there any parts of it that are bad? I do not know anything about Kabbalah. I know it is super mystical. It involves some numerology and that kind of thing. But I do not know. I get annoyed with astrology, but there is a bunch of other woo-woo stuff I do not know enough about to be annoyed by. So I do not know anything about Kabbalah.
Jacobsen: What would you consider the core ethical values in Judaism?
Rosner: The core ethical values? Judaism is a Golden-Rule-based thing. You do not find the Golden Rule phrased exactly that way in the Hebrew Bible, but you do have the Ten Commandments, which cover many of the basics: do not murder, do not steal, do not sleep with other people’s spouses. Honour your parents. Honour God. It is the basic ethical stuff. Maybe the most famous ethical stuff, because everybody knows the Ten Commandments—well, the most famous in the U.S., in the Western world.
Jacobsen: If you could change anything, what would you change?
Rosner: Well, hold on. So for Thanksgiving, we are going to Aunt Lois’s for dinner. I should probably be back by 10 p.m. So, what would I change about Judaism if I could? I do not know. Jews generally do not believe in heaven. I would make it so that Jews believe in heaven, and I would make that belief accurate—that there is a heaven. It can be Jewish heaven, it can be everyone’s heaven, I do not care about the details. As long as Jews can get in, I want there to be a heaven because it makes the afterlife so much simpler.
Jacobsen: What do you mean by that?
Rosner: Without a heaven—without an afterlife—we have to build our own. And we are only in the very first stages of doing that. You have a much better shot at an afterlife than I do because you are thirty years younger, and that thirty years is going to be critical.
And now I have to go. I will talk to you tomorrow.
Jacobsen: All right. Thank you.
Rosner: All right.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/27
How does the Rosner–Jacobsen dialogue explore the widening gap between AI-enhanced understanding and traditional worldviews?
In this conversation, Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen examine whether humans can maintain meaningful understanding in an AI-driven world. Rosner argues that advanced intelligence will force people either to merge with AI or accept a diminished grasp of reality, comparing non-integrated humans to household dogs navigating a world they cannot interpret. Jacobsen responds that many communities—such as the Amish—function pragmatically within limited worldviews, even when those frameworks are false. Together, they discuss religion, pseudoscience, and functional ignorance, concluding that long-standing human tendencies toward siloed understanding will likely intensify as AI accelerates the pace of complexity.
Rick Rosner: All right, there are a couple of general paths that people can take with AI. They can remain separate from AI in the future. Just today on Twitter, people were talking—more directly than I’ve seen before, though it’s true—that people are going to have to merge with AI to keep up with AI. We’ve talked about that, but I haven’t seen others discussing it. So you can merge with AI and continue to participate in understanding the world, because the world’s going to get super big-data complicated. And if you want anything close to a high-level understanding, you’re going to have to be working with AI.
Or you can avoid working with AI and give up on much understanding of the world. The analogy I was thinking of—and I may have brought it up yesterday—is the one about dogs. In human households, or anywhere really, but especially in human environments, dogs experience a ton of things they don’t understand. They understand enough to get fed, know where they’re supposed to relieve themselves, where they sleep, and how to behave in a home. I wonder whether our dogs—and dogs in general—understand, for example, when I throw a treat that I don’t have control over exactly where it lands. I toss a treat, and it bounces; sometimes it bounces toward them, sometimes it takes a bad bounce.
I assume the white dog, who’s more intelligent than the brown dog, understands that this isn’t me messing with them; it’s just the way treats move when they hit the ground. Brown dog—who knows what the brown dog thinks? I would guess the white dog knows I can control light switches. I can make things light up by doing something, because she will sometimes wait for me to turn on the lights before going up the stairs, since she’s losing her eyesight. I would guess the white dog doesn’t think I control the weather, but does she even think about where the weather comes from? It’s a world full of things dogs can’t meaningfully interpret. And in the future, for people without intimate ties to AI, it may become all experience with very little understanding. Maybe I’m being a techno-prick, but maybe not. Comments?
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: They’re going to have their own silos technologically. They’ll be functional within those. White dogs have been Amish for several centuries now.
Rosner: Given that, what do we think of the Amish’s understanding of the world? The Amish.
Jacobsen: They don’t have an understanding of the world. They don’t have a truth-based notion of the world. They have a functional, pragmatic idea of a limited world. That’s more accurate. In that way—farming and such—it’s more akin to how regular non-human animals operate than how more science-oriented contemporary human organizations operate.
Humans had a functional, limited understanding of the world until the past 100 years, when we really started tearing everything apart and understanding it.
Rosner: So is it so bad to be siloed? Sequestered in a world you understand?
Jacobsen: It’s a world, but it’s a false understanding, because God isn’t there to intervene. For all intents and purposes, there is no God like that. Otherwise, he’d be saving babies who drown in tsunamis. It’s a dysfunctional but false worldview. Many delusional people make their lives comfortable.
I don’t think they should be shamed, but what’s the difference between believing God will intervene to help you get pregnant and believing horoscopes or planetary alignments determine your love life? It’s the same type of belief. It’s the same urge to know, expressed as a different form of not knowing. But people get through. It’s benign overall. Prayer, for example, I don’t have much of a problem with it.
Rosner: People have always believed in nonsense that doesn’t interfere much with daily life. If you’re a shoemaker or an engineer or a physicist who happens to hold unconventional beliefs about resurrection and cosmology, like Tipler, it doesn’t stop you from being competent in many areas.
Jacobsen: Thinking the Earth is 6,000 years old when it’s actually about 4.5 billion years old makes you wildly wrong, like 99.99% wrong. But it’s still relatively benign in terms of daily functioning. What matters more is whether someone can read the instructions on a diabetes pill bottle. That’s consequential. That’s more functional. The rest is a deeper question about truth.
Rosner: We’re looking at issues we’ve always had; they’re just going to become more extreme with AI. All right—should we wrap it up?
Jacobsen: We should.
Rosner: Don’t you have any final thoughts?
Jacobsen: No.
Rosner: All right. Thank you. I’ll talk to you tomorrow.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/27
How do film, neuroscience, AI, and criminal psychology reshape our understanding of consciousness and cruelty?
In this wide-ranging conversation, Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosnermove from film analysis to neuroscience, AI consciousness, and the developmental pathways of serial killers. Rosner discusses Marty Supreme, starring Timothée Chalamet, before examining research on the brain’s five cognitive “ages” and growing expert unease about dismissing AI consciousness outright. The discussion turns to how declining neural integration affects human awareness and how this contrasts with the “as-if” consciousness exhibited by large language models. The pair then explore common patterns among serial killers, including escalating fantasy, early behavioral problems, impunity, and heterogeneous backgrounds.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What did you see with Carole?
Rick Rosner: We saw Marty Supreme starring Timothée Chalamet, produced and directed by Josh Safdie, who co-wrote it with Ronald Bronstein and is one-half of the brothers who wrote and directed Uncut Gems with Adam Sandler in 2019. It has a very similar vibe—very stressful, like being lightly electrocuted for 2.5 hours. It is about a sociopathic ping-pong player in the 1950s.
Jacobsen: On paper, that is a fantastic movie pitch.
Rosner: I have not read in detail how it is based on a real guy, but, loosely, it is inspired by table tennis hustler Marty Reisman, who wrote about the things he got up to in his autobiography. The main character definitely gets up to a lot. It is not a typical sports movie.
Jacobsen: Why table tennis?
Rosner: Because it is based on a real guy who played ping-pong in the 1950s.
Jacobsen: Why do you think he was drawn to ping-pong at all?
Rosner: Why do I think the main character was drawn to it? Because he was good at it, and because he was living in Brooklyn in the 1950s, where many other aspects of his life probably sucked. The film does not go into how he took up ping-pong. We meet him after he is already excellent. He is also a ping-pong hustler—like a pool hustler, but with ping-pong—finding places where people play. Ping-pong was pretty popular in the 1950s in New York, and you could find places to play and bet money on it.
There you go. The movie does not come out until Christmas, December 25, 2025. We saw a screening. I assume it will get some nominations. We have seen three movies that will probably get nominated for Oscars: this one, Train Dreams, the adaptation of Denis Johnson’s novella about logger and railroad worker Robert Grainier, and Hamnet, which follows Shakespeare and his wife Agnes and how the death of their son Hamnet feeds into the creation of Hamlet. People are going to get nominated from all of those films.
Anyway, I sent you two science articles. One article was a science-for-the-layperson piece explaining that researchers have identified five distinct “ages” of the brain. You have infancy and childhood, then roughly ages 9 to 32, when the brain consolidates and becomes more integrated. Then there are three later stages, with the final one beginning around eighty-three, when the brain’s network structure starts to come apart. The nodes—the areas that handle specialized analysis—become less connected to one another.
The other article discussed how experts who once scoffed at the idea that AI might be developing something resembling consciousness are now scoffing less, given what large language models can do. The two articles play off one another. If you accept the idea of the five ages of the brain, then people in their eighties—and even earlier—are becoming less conscious in a literal neurological sense. Their brains are becoming less integrated. The central clearinghouse or “workspace” of cognition is degrading.
Yet we do not doubt their consciousness. Most people only start questioning whether someone is conscious when either A) they are comatose, or B) their Alzheimer’s is advanced enough that they are nearly nonfunctional. But if the degradation of the brain’s central workspace has been happening for years—maybe more than a decade—then that key element of consciousness is also degrading. Perhaps it is one of the central elements. But we treat people in that state, and they treat themselves, as if they are as conscious as ever.
When we say someone is “losing their shit,” we usually mean they are losing competence to handle the tasks of daily life. We do not generally mean they are becoming less conscious. Maybe we should tell them that. I do not know.
If we can observe people whose brains are slowly becoming rickety and disconnected, then we should take a second look at AI. In conversation, LLMs behave as if they are persons, with personhood and consciousness implied, even though they lack agency, real-time sensory input, and many other components of consciousness. We have talked a lot about consciousness being an as-if phenomenon: if you poke at conscious reality, you find much—maybe all—of it is a constructed model. The brain behaves as if it is conscious, and therefore it is mindful.
If you follow that principle, it opens the door to considering AI conscious—not necessarily now, but maybe sooner than most people expect.
Any comments?
Jacobsen: None for now. That was sufficiently comprehensive. I am going to pitch the trait, and then you are going to describe why you think that trait appears: American serial killers. They have long histories of problems before the murders—long histories of prior crimes, assaults, sexual violence, arson, burglary. What are the common traits? And then I want your speculation as to why, because there are common traits among them. Before they engage in these streams of crimes, they are prone to a series of crimes leading up to that point.
Rosner: For instance, animal torture in childhood or adolescence is a notorious one.
Jacobsen: Yes—arson, burglary, cruelty toward animals. There is often truancy, fighting, or vandalism.
Rosner: And is not bedwetting part of the deal? I do not know.
Jacobsen: That one—the bedwetting piece—is a myth.
Rosner: Also, it is not a crime. It is not illegal to piss your bed.
Jacobsen: Strictly speaking, on crimes, they have a pattern like that. And the question is—there are other points we will get into later, including neurological abnormalities and different classifications of psychological disorders—but outside of those, what are your thoughts on these prior streams of crimes before they get to the most serious crimes, carried out at a prolific level?
Rosner: I do not know much about serial killers. I know everyone else in America consumes murder podcasts, and I do not like that stuff. I know a bit about Dahmer because we were in the same year in high school—we were about a month apart in age. So I know a little about him. He did the animal torture. Dahmer had alcoholism from an early age. He was an outcast at school and often drunk there. His family seemed like cold assholes. But I do not know whether serial killers have a “typicality.” I assume they do. You just mentioned a bunch of known commonalities.
Jacobsen: I am getting your reflections on why those appear.
Rosner: Dahmer was spectacular in his means of killing and in his other behaviours. But was he really killing for the love of killing? Or for different purposes? Ed Gein—the guy Silence of the Lambs was partly based on—said he wanted to be a woman, or used that as an explanation. He made skin suits from the bodies of women he killed. Dahmer wanted a sex zombie. He wanted a guy he could lobotomize into being a compliant, living sex doll. That never worked, so he would try to kill them.
I feel like some serial killers kill for power, control, rape, and domination. Many people prey on women. Easy prey are street prostitutes. But I do not know. One trait, obviously, is that they find out they can get away with it, and then keep doing it.
Some serial killers maintain normal-looking lives outside the killing. Others probably have to stay on the run, living transient, nomadic lives, so they cannot be traced.
I cannot give you productive input beyond that.
Jacobsen: There is another, more concrete pattern. They have very little empathy for victims. They have shallow or instrumental emotions—people are objects, not subjects. They are impulsive, yet also cold and methodical in their planning. They lack remorse. They tend to have entitlement or grandiosity.
Rosner: But is not childhood abuse—being abused as kids—one of the factors?
Jacobsen: We will get there.
Rosner: I do not know. The body-horror genre of film has a similar attitude. It treats the human body as something gruesomely interesting when violated, altered, or damaged. It is not a genre I like, but it is popular. And these people—serial killers—on some level like seeing that happen. It is spectacular to them. You do not usually know when someone’s flesh is violated. For some psychopaths, that spectacle outweighs what empathy would otherwise prohibit, as you said. Their priorities are all messed up.
Jacobsen: Next, interestingly, despite how strange they are, serial killers have a fantasy life, and that fantasy life escalates. They do not just snap; they develop violent and sexually violent fantasies over many years. They use fiction, pornography, or private daydreams to rehearse scenarios, and then gradually escalate from fantasy to low-risk acts—voyeurism, stalking, assaults. That becomes the basis for homicide. There is a logical psychological progression. Psychosynthesis is logical.
Rosner: You see something on a much smaller scale that might be similar to people and pornography. For many people who consume pornography—even occasionally—it takes more and more extreme material to get the same… well, the jizz. And I guess you are talking about an escalation in what it takes for someone with homicidal fantasies.
It gets more thrilling the closer you get to making the fantasies real. Part of the thrill is probably working out how you would do it. And in the case of a serial killer, they do it—and get away with it—and build toward doing it again.
I assume there is some remorse early on. In the small amount of material I have read, there is a pattern: they kill their first person, feel terrible about it, but then feel compelled to do it again.
I do not know. I do not know where we are going with this. We have never done this topic before. It is not an area I am well-informed in, and I do not have any particular insight.
Jacobsen: Then we can shift to the next point. Victims are a means, not an end, and relationships are transactional. Regarding your earlier point, they often experience early adversity, but this is not universal. It is common, but not universal. They may experience physical, emotional, or sexual abuse; neglect; unstable homes; parental substance abuse; and early exposure to violence. They tend to experience social and relational isolation and difficulty forming close, mutually satisfying relationships. They also tend to target groups that are easier to isolate and less likely to provoke a response from the central police or media.
Rosner: Street prostitutes, people with an addiction, people who are not tied deeply into a social network.
Jacobsen: The last point: serial killers are usually male, but not exclusively. And there is no single race, class, IQ band, or occupation that defines them. So this pop-culture favourite—the white, high-IQ criminal mastermind—is not only unrepresentative, it is wildly misleading.
Rosner: I know that. Sometimes they are just violent idiots.
Jacobsen: Yes. The major caveat is heterogeneity. Even though there are commonalities, themes, and majority patterns, the overall group is varied.
Rosner: I know a bit more about serial sexual predators because I know about Cosby and Weinstein. Those tend to be—at least the ones I know about—older men who flourished before Me Too. I am sure serial sexual abusers share some of the same issues as serial killers. I have the feeling there is a modus that gives you impunity. You figure out how to get away with things.
Cosby preyed on women for decades. Weinstein preyed on women for decades. Both of them thought that, given who they were and how they operated, there would not be consequences. Or if there were consequences, their people could make the consequences go away.
With serial killers—brutal idiots—that is different. They do not have the same kind of agency as a Weinstein or a Cosby. They do not have money, fame, or power.
But I do not know what we are getting out of this. But impunity is part of it. They figure out how to keep doing what they have been doing. If they did not figure it out, then either they were lucky or they did figure it out. And if they did not figure things out—or were not lucky—they would get caught before they became too much of a serial killer.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Scott Douglas Jacobsen (Email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com)
Publisher, In-Sight Publishing
Fort Langley, British Columbia, Canada
Received: October 25, 2025
Accepted: December 15, 2025
Published: December 15, 2025
Abstract
This interview with Professor İzzet Sakallı (Eastern Mediterranean University) explores how quantum cosmology and black hole physics have become practical testing grounds for ideas that sit between quantum mechanics and general relativity. Sakallı traces his entry into the field through Hawking radiation and the black hole information paradox, framing quantum gravity not as a purely aesthetic unification project but as a set of hypotheses that may leave measurable “fingerprints” in astrophysical data. He argues that the proliferation of modified-gravity models has created a methodological bottleneck: without shared benchmarks—waveform libraries for gravitational-wave comparisons, explicit uncertainty budgets, cross-theory test protocols, and strong null tests—claims about “new gravity” risk remaining irreproducible or non-decisive. The conversation then turns to concrete quantum-gravity-motivated effects, including Generalized Uncertainty Principle corrections to Hawking emission and the prospects of quasinormal-mode spectroscopy for probing (or falsifying) universal area quantization across backgrounds beyond general relativity. Throughout, Sakallı emphasizes a research posture that is simultaneously ambitious and disciplined: collaborate with observers, publish code, quantify errors, and treat speculation as speculation until nature signs the receipt—ideally via multi-messenger astronomy and the next generation of gravitational-wave detectors and telescopes.
Keywords
Area quantization, Black hole thermodynamics, Cross-paper comparability, Generalized Uncertainty Principle, Gravitational-wave detectors, Modified gravity, Multi-messenger astronomy, Null tests, Observational astronomy, Quantum cosmology, Quantum corrections, Quantum gravity, Quasinormal-mode spectroscopy, Reproducibility standards, Waveform libraries
Introduction
Professor İzzet Sakallı is a theoretical physicist at Eastern Mediterranean University whose work moves across the fault line where our two best physical frameworks—quantum mechanics and general relativity—refuse to seamlessly merge. With a publication record spanning black hole thermodynamics, quantum-gravity-inspired corrections, and modified gravity models, Sakallı operates in a research ecosystem that is simultaneously fertile and unruly: fertile because new observational instruments now watch black holes “in action,” and unruly because theoretical cosmology has produced an enormous menu of exotic alternatives to Einsteinian gravity, many of them difficult to test cleanly.
In this interview, Sakallı describes how Hawking’s discovery that black holes radiate pushed him toward quantum cosmology by turning a philosophical tension into a technical crisis: if black holes evaporate, what becomes of information? That question, for him, crystallizes the deeper incompatibility between quantum theory’s usual assumption of a fixed spacetime background and relativity’s insistence that spacetime is dynamical and responsive. He presents black holes as the universe’s most unforgiving laboratories—objects where extreme gravity may amplify otherwise invisible quantum effects, at least in principle.
Rather than treating quantum gravity as forever beyond experiment, Sakallı argues for an explicitly observational attitude: build theories that can be compared against gravitational-wave ringdowns, black hole shadow measurements, X-ray timing, and cosmological constraints, and do so with transparent error accounting. He also offers pragmatic guidance to students—master geometry, quantum theory, thermodynamics, and computation—and he insists that the field’s credibility now depends as much on shared standards and reproducibility as on ingenuity.
Main Text (Interview)
Title: Quantum Cosmology at the Frontiers of Observation: An Interview with Prof. Dr. İzzet Sakallı (1)
Interviewer: Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Interviewees: İzzet Sakallı
Professor İzzet Sakallı is a theoretical physicist at Eastern Mediterranean University whose research bridges quantum mechanics, general relativity, and observational astronomy. With over 180 publications exploring black hole thermodynamics, modified gravity theories, and quantum corrections to spacetime, his work sits at the exciting frontier where abstract mathematics meets observable reality. In this interview, he discusses the challenges of testing exotic gravity theories, the quest to observe quantum effects in astrophysical systems, and what the next generation of telescopes and gravitational wave detectors might reveal about the quantum nature of spacetime.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How did you initially become interested in quantum cosmology?
Prof. İzzet Sakallı: My journey into quantum cosmology began with a deep fascination for the paradoxes that emerge when quantum mechanics meets gravity. During my graduate studies, I encountered Stephen Hawking’s remarkable discovery that black holes aren’t truly black—they emit radiation due to quantum effects near their horizons. This revelation struck me as profoundly beautiful and troubling in equal measure. Beautiful because it connected thermodynamics, quantum field theory, and gravity in an unexpected way. Troubling because it raised the information paradox: if black holes evaporate completely, where does the information about everything they swallowed go?
This puzzle captivated me because it sits at the boundary of our understanding. We have two extraordinarily successful theories—quantum mechanics describing the microscopic world, and general relativity describing gravity and spacetime—yet they seem fundamentally incompatible. Quantum mechanics operates on a fixed stage of spacetime, while general relativity tells us that spacetime itself is dynamic, curved by matter and energy. Reconciling these worldviews isn’t just an academic exercise; it’s essential for understanding the universe’s earliest moments after the Big Bang and what happens at the center of black holes.
What drew me specifically to this field was the realization that we might actually test these ideas. Unlike some areas of theoretical physics that seem forever beyond experimental reach, quantum gravity leaves potential fingerprints in astrophysical observations. The incredible masses and strong gravitational fields of black holes, combined with quantum effects, create natural laboratories for exploring this physics. Working under Professor Mustafa Halilsoy, I learned to appreciate how exact solutions in modified gravity theories could bridge the gap between pure mathematics and physical reality.
Jacobsen: What is your advice for prospective students of quantum cosmology?
Sakalli: For students aspiring to contribute to quantum cosmology, I emphasize that this field demands both breadth and depth. You need to become fluent in multiple languages: the geometric language of general relativity, the probabilistic language of quantum mechanics, and increasingly, the computational language of modern astrophysics.
Start with a rock-solid foundation in differential geometry and tensor calculus—these are the tools for understanding how spacetime curves and how matter moves through it. But don’t just manipulate symbols; develop physical intuition. Work through problems in classical mechanics until you can see the symmetries and conservation laws. Study thermodynamics thoroughly, because black hole thermodynamics beautifully parallels ordinary thermal physics, and recognizing these patterns will guide your understanding.
Equally important is developing computational expertise. Modern research requires numerical methods because most interesting problems in modified gravity cannot be solved with pencil and paper alone. Learn symbolic computation packages like Mathematica, and master numerical techniques in Python or C++. The ability to solve differential equations numerically, simulate gravitational wave signals, or analyze telescope data is increasingly essential.
However, I encourage students to maintain an interdisciplinary perspective. Quantum cosmology doesn’t exist in isolation—it connects to high-energy particle physics, observational astronomy, and mathematical physics. Read broadly. Understand the constraints from gravitational wave observations, X-ray astronomy, and particle accelerators. Theory disconnected from observation risks becoming mere mathematical recreation rather than physics.
Most critically, develop a questioning mindset. Many modified gravity theories make bold claims. Learn to evaluate them critically: Does mathematics hold together consistently? Do the physical predictions make sense? Can they be tested observationally? This skeptical yet-open approach will serve you well, helping distinguish promising ideas from speculative constructs.
Finally, seek collaboration with observers and experimentalists. Some of my most fruitful research has emerged from conversations with colleagues who work with real telescopes and detectors. They bring a grounding perspective about what’s actually measurable, which keeps theoretical work honest and relevant.
Jacobsen: Which shared benchmarks are most urgent for turn ing exotic-gravity claims into decisive, reproducible tests?
Sakalli: This question strikes at the heart of a crisis facing theoretical cosmology. We have an abundance of modified gravity theories—hundreds, perhaps thousands—each claiming to improve upon Einstein’s general relativity or incorporate quantum effects. Yet we lack systematic standards to distinguish viable theories from mathematical curiosities. Establishing rigorous benchmarks is perhaps the most important task facing our field today.
The first urgent need is comprehensive waveform libraries. When gravitational waves ripple through spacetime from colliding black holes, the signal encodes information about the underlying gravitational theory. General relativity makes specific predictions about these waveforms. Modified theories predict different signals. We need catalogs of predicted waveforms for all major modified theories, calculated with sufficient precision that we can compare them meaningfully with observations from LIGO, Virgo, and future detectors. These ”shadow libraries” of alternative signals would enable systematic searches through observational data, testing whether nature follows Einstein’s predictions or reveals deviations pointing toward quantum gravity.
Equally critical is establishing uncertainty budget frameworks. Every theoretical prediction carries errors—from approximations in our calculations, from truncating infinite series, from choosing particular coordinate systems. Yet too often, papers present predictions without honest error estimates. We need standards requiring researchers to quantify theoretical uncertainties alongside observational uncertainties. This transparency would prevent false claims of detecting new physics when observations simply fall within the combined error bars of general relativity plus realistic uncertainty estimates.
We also need cross-theory comparison protocols—standardized tests that every modified gravity theory must pass before being taken seriously. These should include solar system tests, where we have exquisite precision measurements; binary pulsar systems, which have constrained gravity for decades; gravitational wave observations, our newest probe; and cosmological observations of the universe’s large-scale structure. Any theory failing these established tests should be reconsidered or modified, while theories passing them merit deeper investigation.
Particularly powerful are null tests—observations designed to distinguish general relativity from entire classes of alternatives without needing to test each theory individually. For instance, if gravitons have mass, they would travel slightly slower than light, causing gravitational waves and light from the same event to arrive at different times. Observing such time delays would rule out massless gravity theories in one shot. Similarly, tests of Lorentz invariance—the principle that physics looks the same regardless of direction or velocity—can constrain whole families of quantum gravity theories.
Reproducibility standards are equally vital. All computational codes should be publicly available with complete documentation. Independent groups should verify results using different numerical methods. This scientific hygiene prevents errors from propagating through the literature and builds confidence in robust findings.
For educational materials like textbooks, we need clear labeling distinguishing well-established physics from promising but speculative ideas. Students should learn what we know solidly, what we suspect tentatively, and what remains pure speculation. Mixing these categories without clear boundaries misleads the next generation.
Jacobsen: How do you enforce cross-paper comparability of assumptions across coauthorship networks?
Sakalli: Maintaining consistency across collaborative research requires systematic protocols and careful attention to detail. In our research group, we’ve developed several practices that help ensure our papers build coherently on each other rather than contradicting ourselves through subtle inconsistencies.
We maintain a living standards document that all group members reference. This specifies our notation conventions: Do we use a mostly minus or mostly plus metric signature? How do we define the Riemann curvature tensor’s sign? What units do we adopt? These seemingly minor choices can cause major confusion if they vary between papers. By standardizing them, we ensure that someone comparing results from different papers isn’t misled by notational differences.
For physical parameters, we document our assumptions explicitly in every paper. When studying black holes surrounded by quintessence dark energy, for instance, we record the assumed equation of state parameter, its range, and why that range is physically motivated based on cosmological observations. This documentation serves multiple purposes: it keeps us honest, helps readers understand our assumptions, and provides a reference when new collaborators join projects.
Regular group seminars play a crucial role. Graduate students and postdocs present their work in-progress, going through derivations step-by-step. This peer review within the group catches inconsistent approximations before they reach publication. When one student assumes weak field conditions while another works in the strong field regime, group discussions reveal whether their conclusions should match or legitimately differ.
We also practice computational validation—having different team members independently check numerical results using alternative methods. One person might use Mathematica’s symbolic capabilities, while another writes custom Python code with different algorithms. When both approaches yield consistent results, confidence increases. Discrepancies flag potential errors for investigation.
Before beginning collaborative projects, we establish explicit agreements about fundamental assumptions, approximation schemes, and the domain of validity we’re targeting. This preemptive alignment prevents the awkward situation where coauthors realize mid-project that they’ve been working under incompatible assumptions.
Literature alignment is another key practice. We systematically compare our parameter choices with established work in the field. When we need to deviate from standard choices, we document why explicitly in our papers. This transparency helps readers understand whether differences from earlier work represent genuine new insights or simply alternative approaches to the same physics.
Jacobsen: How does introducing Generalized Uncertainty Principle corrections change emission spectra across standard black holes?
Sakalli: The Generalized Uncertainty Principle represents one of the most intriguing predictions emerging from various approaches to quantum gravity. Standard quantum mechanics tells us there’s a minimum uncertainty in simultaneously measuring a particle’s position and momentum. The GUP modifies this, introducing a minimum measurable length—roughly the Planck length, about a billion billion times smaller than an atomic nucleus. This modification has profound implications for black hole physics.
For standard Schwarzschild black holes, Hawking calculated that they emit thermal radiation with a temperature inversely proportional to their mass. Massive black holes are cold; small ones are hot. The GUP modifies this relationship. The Hawking temperature gets corrections that depend on the black hole’s size compared to the Planck length. For astrophysical black holes—even stellar-mass ones—these corrections are unimaginably tiny. But the corrections follow an interesting pattern: they’re suppressed by the ratio of the Planck length squared to the horizon radius squared, which for a solar-mass black hole gives a factor around ten to the minus seventy-eighth power—utterly negligible.
However, the situation becomes more interesting when we consider spinning black holes and particles of different spins. Scalar particles, fermions, photons, and gravitons all interact differently with the curved spacetime near black holes. Each particle type has characteristic ”greybody factors” describing how likely it is to escape the black hole’s gravitational pull after being created near the horizon. The GUP modifies these factors differently for different particle spins.
For fermions—particles like electrons with half-integer spin—the GUP corrections depend on the particle’s helicity, its spin direction relative to its motion. Co-rotating fermions, spinning in the same sense as the black hole, experience different GUP corrections than counter-rotating ones. This helicity dependence could, in principle, create asymmetries in the emitted particle abundances.
For higher-spin particles like photons and gravitons, the effects are even more complex. These particles can extract rotational energy from spinning black holes through a process called su perradiance—think of it as stimulated emission from atoms, but for black holes. The GUP modifies the conditions under which superradiance occurs, potentially changing which frequencies are amplified and how quickly the black hole spins down.
If we could actually observe these effects, they would manifest as deviations in black hole evaporation rates, altered ratios of different particles in the emission spectrum, modified superradiant instability timescales, and potentially even changes in the black hole’s shadow—the dark silhouette seen by distant observers like the Event Horizon Telescope.
The sobering reality is that current observational limits constrain the GUP parameter to values that make these effects impossibly small to detect in astrophysical black holes. We would need sensitivity improvements of dozens of orders of magnitude. However, if primordial black holes—tiny ones formed in the early universe—exist and are evaporating today, their much smaller sizes would enhance GUP effects enough to potentially leave detectable signatures in cosmic ray observations.
Jacobsen: How much can Quasinormal Mode spectroscopy yield universal area quantization across modified-gravity backgrounds?
Sakalli: When you strike a bell, it rings at characteristic frequencies determined by its shape and com position. Black holes behave similarly. Perturbed by infalling matter or gravitational waves, they ”ring down” by emitting gravitational waves at characteristic frequencies called quasi normal modes. These cosmic bells encode information about the black hole’s properties and, potentially, about the nature of spacetime itself.
One of the most fascinating conjectures in quantum gravity suggests that black hole area might be quantized—coming in discrete units rather than varying continuously. Shahar Hod originally proposed that highly damped quasinormal modes might reveal this quantization. The idea is beautiful: just as atomic spectra reveal quantum mechanics at microscopic scales, black hole spectra might reveal quantum gravity at macroscopic scales.
In general relativity, the spacing between highly damped modes approaches a value directly related to the black hole’s temperature. Bekenstein and others showed that if black hole area is quantized, the quantum of area should relate to the asymptotic mode spacing. The connection isn’t exact—there are subtleties about numerical factors—but the possibility that quasinormal modes encode fundamental quantum gravity information is tantalizing.
Our research into modified gravity theories reveals that this connection is surprisingly robust but not universal. When we add quantum corrections—whether from dilaton fields, quintessence matter surrounding the black hole, or higher-order curvature terms—the quasinormal mode spectrum shifts. Yet in many cases, highly damped modes still show regular spacing patterns that relate to an effective area quantization.
However, the relationship between mode spacing and area quantization depends on theoretical details: boundary conditions at the horizon, the field content of the theory, and how we define geometric quantities in modified gravity. Not all theories preserve the connection between spectral properties and area quantization.
The observational challenge is formidable. Current gravitational wave detectors can reliably measure only the first few overtones—the fundamental mode and perhaps the first couple har monics. The asymptotic regime where universal behavior emerges requires observing dozens of overtones. Future detectors like Einstein Telescope and Cosmic Explorer may reach the fifth to seventh overtone for nearby mergers, but extracting highly damped modes remains extremely challenging.
The most promising approach combines multiple observational probes. Quasinormal mode spectroscopy from gravitational waves provides one window. Black hole shadow observations from radio interferometry provide another. X-ray timing from matter spiraling into black holes offers a third perspective. If quantum gravity corrections affect all these observables consistently, joint analysis could reveal signatures too subtle for any single observation to capture.
We should be realistic: directly observing Planck-scale quantum effects in astrophysical black holes probably exceeds foreseeable instrumental capabilities. However, quasinormal mode studies may reveal whether area quantization is a universal feature of quantum gravity or specific to certain approaches like loop quantum gravity. They might also detect if quantum gravity involves a characteristic length scale parametrically larger than the Planck length—something not currently ruled out.
Discussion
Sakallı’s through-line is methodological realism with a contrarian streak: dream big about quantum spacetime, but keep your feet planted in what can be checked. He identifies a genuine structural problem in contemporary gravity research: theoretical supply has outpaced evaluative infrastructure. When hundreds or thousands of modified-gravity frameworks can be written down, novelty becomes cheap; what becomes expensive is decisive discrimination. His proposed remedy is not another “best” theory but a shared testing culture—waveform catalogs for alternatives to general relativity, community expectations for uncertainty quantification, and cross-theory protocols that force models to survive the full obstacle course of solar-system constraints, binary pulsars, gravitational-wave data, and cosmological structure.
That emphasis matters because it reframes “exotic gravity” from a marketplace of clever equations into a cumulative science. In his account, comparability is not an aesthetic preference; it is an anti-chaos device. Standardized sign conventions, explicit parameter ranges, internal seminar scrutiny, and independent computational replication are presented as the difference between a literature that self-corrects and one that merely accumulates. This is a quietly radical point: the next big leap in quantum gravity may arrive not only from new mathematics, but from better scientific hygiene.
On the physics side, Sakallı’s discussion of Generalized Uncertainty Principle corrections and quasinormal-mode spectroscopy illustrates the field’s core tension. The ideas are conceptually sharp—minimum length scales, helicity-dependent emission distortions, superradiance thresholds, spectral signatures that might hint at area quantization—but their detectability is, by his own framing, brutally constrained for ordinary astrophysical black holes. The most interesting possibilities therefore concentrate in special regimes: tiny black holes (including speculative primordial populations), unusually precise ringdown measurements, or joint inference across multiple channels where consistent small deviations might accumulate into something statistically persuasive.
His position on quasinormal modes is especially instructive: the connection between highly damped mode structure and area quantization is “robust but not universal,” which is exactly the kind of statement a maturing field should cultivate. It is neither hype nor dismissal; it is a conditional claim that points to the work that must be done—clarify boundary conditions, define geometric quantities consistently across modified theories, and understand where “universal” behavior actually survives. Observationally, he is frank that the asymptotic regime is hard to reach, but he also gestures toward a sensible strategy: treat gravitational-wave ringdowns, black hole images, and high-energy timing data as complementary constraints rather than rival camps.
The interview’s broader implication is that the “quantum nature of spacetime” is no longer only a metaphysical slogan. It is becoming an empirically pressured research program—but only if the community builds shared benchmarks, publishes reproducible pipelines, and learns to prize null results and constraint-setting as highly as dramatic claims. In that sense, Sakallı’s message is almost humanistic: nature is not obligated to reward our cleverness, but it does reliably reward our honesty.
Methods
The interview was conducted via typed questions—with explicit consent—for 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 if any 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
This interview was conducted as part of a broader quantum cosmology book project. The re sponses reflect my current research perspective as of October 2025, informed by over 180 publi cations and ongoing collaborations with researchers worldwide.
Selected References
General Background and Foundational Works
Hawking, S.W. (1974). Black hole explosions? Nature, 248(5443), 30-31. Bekenstein, J.D. (1973). Black holes and entropy. Physical Review D, 7(8), 2333.
Bardeen, J.M., Carter, B., & Hawking, S.W. (1973). The four laws of black hole mechanics. Communications in Mathematical Physics, 31(2), 161-170.
Modified Gravity and Quantum Corrections
Sakallı, ˙I., & Sucu, E. (2025). Quantum tunneling and Aschenbach effect in nonlinear Einstein Power-Yang-Mills AdS black holes. Chinese Physics C, 49, 105101.
Sakallı, ˙I., Sucu, E., & Dengiz, S. (2025). Quantum-Corrected Thermodynamics of Conformal Weyl Gravity Black Holes: GUP Effects and Phase Transitions. arXiv preprint 2508.00203.
Al-Badawi, A., Ahmed, F., & Sakallı, ˙I. (2025). A Black Hole Solution in Kalb-Ramond Gravity with Quintessence Field: From Geodesic Dynamics to Thermal Criticality. arXiv preprint 2508.16693.
Sakallı, ˙I., Sucu, E., & Sert, O. (2025). Quantum-corrected thermodynamics and plasma lensing in non-minimally coupled symmetric teleparallel black holes. Physical Review D, 50, 102063.
Ahmed, F., Al-Badawi, A., & Sakallı, ˙I. (2025). Perturbations and Greybody Factors of AdS Black Holes with a Cloud of Strings Surrounded by Quintessence-like Field in NLED Scenario. arXiv preprint 2510.19862.
Black Hole Thermodynamics and Phase Transitions
Gashti, S.N., Sakallı, ˙I., & Pourhassan, B. (2025). Thermodynamic scalar curvature and topo logical classification in accelerating charged AdS black holes under rainbow gravity. Physics of the Dark Universe, 50, 102136.
Sucu, E., & Sakallı, ˙I. (2025). AdS black holes in Einstein-Kalb-Ramond gravity: Quantum 26 corrections, phase transitions, and orbital dynamics. Nuclear Physics B, 1018, 117081.
Sakallı, ˙I., Sucu, E., & Dengiz, S. (2025). Weak gravity conjecture in ModMax black holes: weak cosmic censorship and photon sphere analysis. European Physics C, 85, 1144.
Pourhassan, B., & Sakallı, ˙I. (2025). Transport phenomena and KSS bound in quantum corrected AdS black holes. European Physics C, 85(4), 369.
Gashti, S.N., Sakallı, ˙I., Pourhassan, B., & Baku, K.J. (2025). Thermodynamic topology, photon spheres, and evidence for weak gravity conjecture in charged black holes with perfect fluid within Rastall theory. Physics Letters B, 869, 139862.
Quasinormal Modes and Spectroscopy
Gashti, S.N., Afshar, M.A., Sakallı, ˙I., & Mazandaran, U. (2025). Weak gravity conjecture in ModMax black holes: weak cosmic censorship and photon sphere analysis. arXiv preprint 2504.11939.
Sakallı, ˙I., & Kanzi, S. (2023). Superradiant (In)stability, Greybody Radiation, and Quasi normal Modes of Rotating Black Holes in Non-Linear Maxwell f(R) Gravity. Symmetry, 15, 873.
Observational Tests and Gravitational Lensing
Sucu, E., & Sakallı, ˙I. (2025). Probing Starobinsky-Bel-Robinson gravity: Gravitational lensing, thermodynamics, and orbital dynamics. Nuclear Physics B, 1018, 116982.
Mangut, M., G¨ursel, H., & Sakallı, ˙I. (2025). Lorentz-symmetry violation in charged black-hole thermodynamics and gravitational lensing: effects of the Kalb-Ramond field. Chinese Physics C, 49, 065106.
Ahmed, F., Al-Badawi, A., & Sakallı, ˙I. (2025). Geodesics Analysis, Perturbations and Deflec tion Angle of Photon Ray in Finslerian Bardeen-Like Black Hole with a GM Surrounded by a Quintessence Field. Annalen der Physik, e2500087.
Generalized Uncertainty Principle and Quantum Effects
Ahmed, F., Al-Badawi, A., & Sakallı, ˙I. (2025). Photon Deflection and Magnification in Kalb Ramond Black Holes with Topological String Configurations. arXiv preprint 2507.22673.
Ahmed, F., & Sakallı, ˙I. (2025). Exploring geodesics, quantum fields and thermodynamics of Schwarzschild-AdS black hole with a global monopole in non-commutative geometry. Nuclear Physics B, 1017, 116951.
Wormholes and Exotic Compact Objects
Ahmed, F., Al-Badawi, A., & Sakallı, ˙I. (2025). Gravitational lensing phenomena of Ellis Bronnikov-Morris-Thorne wormhole with global monopole and cosmic string. Physics Letters B, 864, 139448.
Ahmed, F., & Sakallı, ˙I. (2025). Dunkl black hole with phantom global monopoles: geodesic analysis, thermodynamics and shadow. European Physics C, 85, 660.
Information Theory and Holography
Pourhassan, B., Sakallı, ˙I., et al. (2022). Quantum Thermodynamics of an M2-Corrected Reissner-Nordstr¨om Black Hole. EPL, 144, 29001.
Sakallı, ˙I., & Kanzi, S. (2022). Topical Review: greybody factors and quasinormal modes for black holes in various theories – fingerprints of invisibles. Turkish Journal of Physics, 46, 51-103.
Modified Theories and String Theory
Sucu, E., & Sakallı, ˙I. (2023). GUP-reinforced Hawking radiation in rotating linear dilaton black hole spacetime. Physics Scripta, 98, 105201.
Event Horizon Telescope and Observational Cosmology
Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration (2019). First M87 Event Horizon Telescope Results. I. The Shadow of the Supermassive Black Hole. The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 875(1), L1.
Abbott, B.P., et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration) (2016). Observa tion of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger. Physical Review Letters, 116(6), 061102.
Recent Collaborative Works
Tangphati, T., Sakallı, ˙I., Banerjee, A., & Pradhan, A. (2024). Behaviors of quark stars in the Rainbow Gravity framework. Physical Review D, 46, 101610.
Banerjee, A., Sakallı, ˙I., Pradhan, A., & Dixit, A. (2024). Properties of interacting quark star in light of Rastall gravity. Classical and Quantum Gravity, 42, 025008.
Sakallı, ˙I., Banerjee, A., Dayanandan, B., & Pradhan, A. (2025). Quark stars in f(R, T) gravity: mass-to-radius profiles and observational data. Chinese Physics C, 49, 015102.
Gashti, S.N., Sakallı, ˙I., Pourhassan, B., & Baku, K.J. (2024). Thermodynamic topology and phase space analysis of AdS black holes through non-extensive entropy perspectives. European Physics C, 85, 305.
Al-Badawi, A., & Sakallı, ˙I. (2025). The Static Charged Black Holes with Weyl Corrections. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 64, 50.
Textbooks and Reviews
Carroll, S.M. (2004). Spacetime and Geometry: An Introduction to General Relativity. Addison Wesley.
Wald, R.M. (1984). General Relativity. University of Chicago Press.
Rovelli, C. (2004). Quantum Gravity. Cambridge University Press.
Kiefer, C. (2012). Quantum Gravity (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press. Ashtekar, A., & Petkov, V. (Eds.) (2014). Springer Handbook of Spacetime. Springer.
Note: This reference list includes representative works from Prof. Sakallı’s extensive publication record (181+ papers) and foundational works in the field. For a complete bibliography, please consult the INSPIRE-HEP database or Prof. Sakallı’s institutional profile.
Journal & Article Details
Publisher: In-Sight Publishing
Publisher Founding: March 1, 2014
Web Domain: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com
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: 4
Section: A
Theme Type: Discipline
Theme Premise: Quantum Cosmology
Theme Part: None.
Formal Sub-Theme: None.
Individual Publication Date: December 15, 2025
Issue Publication Date: January 1, 2026
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Word Count: 2,466
Image Credits: İzzet Sakallı
ISSN (International Standard Serial Number): 2369-6885
Acknowledgements
The author acknowledges İzzet Sakallı for her time, expertise, and valuable contributions. Her 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.
Competing Interests
The author declares no competing interests.
License & Copyright
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012–Present.
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 Quantum Cosmology at the Frontiers of Observation: An Interview with Prof. Dr. İzzet Sakallı (1) (Scott Douglas Jacobsen, December 15, 2025).
American Medical Association (AMA 11th Edition)
Jacobsen SD. Quantum Cosmology at the Frontiers of Observation: An Interview with Prof. Dr. İzzet Sakallı (1). In-Sight: Interviews. 2025;13(4). Published December 15, 2025. http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/quantum-cosmology-frontiers-observation-izzet-sakalli-1
American Psychological Association (APA 7th Edition)
Jacobsen, S. D. (2025, December 15). Quantum Cosmology at the Frontiers of Observation: An Interview with Prof. Dr. İzzet Sakallı (1). In-Sight: Interviews, 13(4). In-Sight Publishing. http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/quantum-cosmology-frontiers-observation-izzet-sakalli-1
Brazilian National Standards (ABNT)
JACOBSEN, Scott Douglas. Quantum Cosmology at the Frontiers of Observation: An Interview with Prof. Dr. İzzet Sakallı (1). In-Sight: Interviews, Fort Langley, v. 13, n. 4, 15 dez. 2025. Disponível em: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/quantum-cosmology-frontiers-observation-izzet-sakalli-1
Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (17th Edition)
Jacobsen, Scott Douglas. 2025. “Quantum Cosmology at the Frontiers of Observation: An Interview with Prof. Dr. İzzet Sakallı (1).” In-Sight: Interviews 13 (4). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/quantum-cosmology-frontiers-observation-izzet-sakalli-1.
Chicago/Turabian, Notes & Bibliography (17th Edition)
Jacobsen, Scott Douglas. “Quantum Cosmology at the Frontiers of Observation: An Interview with Prof. Dr. İzzet Sakallı (1).” In-Sight: Interviews 13, no. 4 (December 15, 2025). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/quantum-cosmology-frontiers-observation-izzet-sakalli-1.
Harvard
Jacobsen, S.D. (2025) ‘Quantum Cosmology at the Frontiers of Observation: An Interview with Prof. Dr. İzzet Sakallı (1)’, In-Sight: Interviews, 13(4), 15 December. Available at: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/quantum-cosmology-frontiers-observation-izzet-sakalli-1.
Harvard (Australian)
Jacobsen, SD 2025, ‘Quantum Cosmology at the Frontiers of Observation: An Interview with Prof. Dr. İzzet Sakallı (1)’, In-Sight: Interviews, vol. 13, no. 4, 15 December, viewed 15 December 2025, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/quantum-cosmology-frontiers-observation-izzet-sakalli-1.
Modern Language Association (MLA, 9th Edition)
Jacobsen, Scott Douglas. “Quantum Cosmology at the Frontiers of Observation: An Interview with Prof. Dr. İzzet Sakallı (1).” In-Sight: Interviews, vol. 13, no. 4, 2025, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/quantum-cosmology-frontiers-observation-izzet-sakalli-1.
Vancouver/ICMJE
Jacobsen SD. Quantum Cosmology at the Frontiers of Observation: An Interview with Prof. Dr. İzzet Sakallı (1) [Internet]. 2025 Dec 15;13(4). Available from: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/quantum-cosmology-frontiers-observation-izzet-sakalli-1
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.
Share this:
Scott Douglas Jacobsen (Email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com)
Publisher, In-Sight Publishing
Fort Langley, British Columbia, Canada
Received: October 19, 2025
Accepted: December 15, 2025
Published: December 15, 2025
Abstract
This interview with Tauya Chinama—a Zimbabwean freethinker, educator, and human-rights advocate—traces an intellectual and moral transition from religious training toward agnosticism and, ultimately, apatheism. Chinama recounts how sustained engagement with theodicy (the attempt to reconcile an all-good, all-powerful God with pervasive suffering) undermined his prior commitments, as real-world pain and injustice outpaced the explanatory power of familiar theological defences. He critiques common responses to evil grounded in free will or determinism, arguing that each fails to preserve the traditional attributes of God while offering little ethical clarity for human responsibility. Alongside philosophical concerns, Chinama highlights the psychological and social costs of departing faith-based institutions—stigmatization, ostracism, and the demand for personal resilience. The conversation culminates in a secular moral orientation: that human beings are “on our own” in the sense that alleviating suffering and building justice are human tasks, not deferred to divine intervention.
Keywords
Agnosticism, Apatheism, Augustine of Hippo, Catholicism, Determinism, Dasein, Ethics, Free Will, Human Responsibility, Logical Analysis, Problem of Evil, Theodicy
Introduction
Tauya Chinama is a Zimbabwean freethinker, educator, and advocate for human rights and cultural preservation whose intellectual path runs through the dense intersection of philosophy, theology, and lived moral experience. Trained in religious study and once oriented toward priesthood, he gradually came to view the traditional problem of evil not as a technical puzzle for theologians, but as a sustained challenge to intellectual honesty. For Chinama, theodicy is not merely a debate about metaphysical consistency; it is a test of whether a worldview can confront the reality of disability, disease, natural disasters, and human vulnerability without dissolving into contradiction or moral deflection.
In this short exchange, Scott Douglas Jacobsen invites Chinama to articulate the central question that shaped his training and the turning points that reoriented his identity—from believer, to agnostic, to what he calls an apatheist with “a touch of cosmopolitanism.” Chinama examines standard theological responses to suffering, critiques their logical coherence, and describes the personal consequences of choosing candour over conformity inside religious institutions. The interview also gestures beyond metaphysics toward a practical ethical conclusion: if suffering persists without reliable divine remedy, then responsibility for justice and compassion rests squarely with human beings and the societies they build.
Main Text (Interview)
Title: Tauya Chinama on Theodicy, Humanism, and Preserving Zimbabwe’s Cultural Heritage
Interviewer: Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Interviewees: Tauya Chinama
Tauya Chinama is a Zimbabwean freethinker, educator, and advocate for human rights and cultural preservation. Trained in philosophy and theology, he transitioned from religious study to humanism, emphasizing intellectual honesty, dialogue, and heritage-based education. As a teacher of heritage studies, he works to integrate indigenous knowledge and languages into learning systems, arguing that language carries culture, history, and identity. Chinama is active in Zimbabwe’s humanist movement, contributing to interfaith dialogues, academic research, and public discourse on secularism, ethics, and education reform. He champions the preservation of Shona and Ndebele while critiquing systemic barriers that weaken local language education.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: When you were doing your training, what was your main specialization? What was the core research question?
Tauya Chinama: I had several questions, but my primary focus was on theodicy: the relationship between the existence of God and the problem of evil.
That was the question that led me to think more deeply. Years ago, I preached about an omniscient, omnipotent, all-good God. But then I looked at the reality: people who are disabled, people dying in natural disasters, people dying from diseases. Why is God not ending all this suffering? Where is he? Is he enjoying it?
The key issue is theodicy. The Greek words are theos (God) and dike (justice). Is it just for God to allow these things to happen? That question pulled me further. I came to feel that I could act more justly as a human being than the God being preached, who supposedly is capable of ending poverty, disease, disability, and natural disasters, but does not. Why should I believe in him? Why should I revere him?
The realization was: we are on our own. We are responsible, and we must act to address what is happening to us. That was the key lesson that pushed me from being a believer to an agnostic, and then to what I now call an apatheist—a person indifferent to God’s existence. Today, I describe myself as an apatheist with a touch of cosmopolitanism.
Jacobsen: For theodicy, what were the standard arguments? How did theologians justify evil, suffering, and pain?
Chinama: A number of them talked about free will. Others leaned on determinism. But this did not make sense to me. If we say that human beings have free will, then it means God is not omniscient—he does not know everything that will happen before it occurs. If he knows it all, then free will does not exist.
On the other hand, if determinism is true, then we are simply victims of a plan. We cannot resist; we can only follow the flow. We are what Martin Heidegger might call Dasein—a being-toward-death. We are thrown into existence, moving toward death, with limited choice. That line of argument, whether from free will or determinism, did not make sense to me.
It could not resolve the harm and suffering I saw in the world. The defences of theologians like St. Augustine of Hippo also did not persuade me. Augustine introduced the doctrine of original sin and linked sexuality to sin, claiming virginity was a higher state. But none of this made sense to me. He had emerged from Manichaean philosophy, which emphasized dualism—light and darkness, good and evil as opposing forces. His framework seemed more like a leftover from dualism than a convincing defence of Christian doctrine.
Jacobsen: Was it the weakness of the theological arguments for God in the face of evil that made you drift away? Or was it the strength of non-religious arguments that convinced you to adopt a non-religious way of looking at life?
Chinama: It was both. When you look at the theological arguments and test them through logic—a branch of philosophy about correct reasoning—you quickly see the conclusions do not follow from the premises. That leaves you confused.
So I moved from being a believer to an agnostic, saying, “Perhaps I am wrong, perhaps I am right.” Over time, you sober up. Sometimes you even become militant, but then you realize militancy does not work. You calm down, or you risk messing things up.
I remember when I was training to be a priest. I confided in a particular Indian priest—I will not give his name—that I was slowly losing my faith. He told me something shocking: that many high-ranking figures in the Catholic Church, including bishops and cardinals, do not actually believe the doctrines they defend.
I was surprised. Here were people defending the Church’s teachings every day, yet privately admitting they did not believe them. He even told me he had gone through the same phase and had never fully recovered his faith. His advice was: “Do not fight it. Just go with the flow.”
But I felt I was too honest to live that way. I could not simply go along with something I did not believe.
Jacobsen: In the end, was your decision to leave a faith-based position and move to a non-religious position more an intellectual exercise, or more about changing how you felt? Or was it a little of both?
Chinama: It was both. Several factors led me to change. It was an intellectual practice, but also an emotional realization that what I thought religion was turned out not to be. The whole motivation collapsed, and I was left with no choice but to withdraw.
I do not regret it, but it was a hard decision. There is stigmatization, ostracism, and other consequences that come with choosing such a path. It is serious—you need to be mentally strong. For me, it was primarily intellectual, but I also required mental resilience to overcome it.
Jacobsen: Thank you for your time today, Tauya.
Discussion
Chinama’s account frames apostasy (or, more precisely, disengagement) less as rebellion than as an evidence-driven recalibration: when the promises of an omniscient, omnipotent, all-good deity collide with a world saturated in undeserved suffering, the explanatory burden becomes acute. The interview’s philosophical centre is his dissatisfaction with the standard repertoire of theodicies—especially those that appeal to free will or determinism. In his reading, free-will defences struggle to preserve divine foreknowledge without hollowing out freedom, while deterministic accounts risk portraying human beings as trapped in a plan that renders moral protest performative. The result is not merely a theoretical impasse; it is a moral one, because the justifications appear unable to honour the gravity of suffering they seek to explain.
A second theme is integrity under institutional pressure. Chinama’s recollection of confiding in a priest—who suggested that some senior Church figures privately disbelieve doctrines they publicly defend—introduces a sociological dimension: religious systems can incentivize outward loyalty even when inward conviction erodes. Chinama presents his exit as a refusal to inhabit that split. This casts “deconversion” not only as an intellectual event but as an ethical stance against performative belief, sustained by psychological resilience in the face of stigma and ostracism.
Finally, the conversation resolves toward a secular ethic of responsibility. Chinama’s apatheism is not portrayed as cynicism; it is a posture of indifference toward unverifiable divine claims paired with heightened concern for human action. The implicit thesis is that moral seriousness survives the collapse of theological certainty—and may even sharpen under it—because the work of reducing suffering cannot be outsourced to providence. In that sense, the interview is less about losing faith than about relocating duty: from the heavens, back to the hands of human beings.
Methods
The interview was conducted via typed questions—with explicit consent—for 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 if any 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.)
Journal & Article Details
Publisher: In-Sight Publishing
Publisher Founding: March 1, 2014
Web Domain: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com
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: 4
Section: A
Theme Type: Idea
Theme Premise: Humanism
Theme Part: None.
Formal Sub-Theme: None.
Individual Publication Date: December 15, 2025
Issue Publication Date: January 1, 2026
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Word Count: 944
Image Credits: Photo by Damian Patkowski on Unsplash
ISSN (International Standard Serial Number): 2369-6885
Acknowledgements
The author acknowledges Tauya Chinama 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.
Competing Interests
The author declares no competing interests.
License & Copyright
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012–Present.
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 Tauya Chinama on Theodicy, Humanism, and Preserving Zimbabwe’s Cultural Heritage (Scott Douglas Jacobsen, December 15, 2025).
American Medical Association (AMA 11th Edition)
Jacobsen SD. Tauya Chinama on Theodicy, Humanism, and Preserving Zimbabwe’s Cultural Heritage. In-Sight: Interviews. 2025;13(4). Published December 15, 2025. http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/tauya-chinama-theodicy-humanism-preserving-zimbabwe-cultural-heritage
American Psychological Association (APA 7th Edition)
Jacobsen, S. D. (2025, December 15). Tauya Chinama on Theodicy, Humanism, and Preserving Zimbabwe’s Cultural Heritage. In-Sight: Interviews, 13(4). In-Sight Publishing. http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/tauya-chinama-theodicy-humanism-preserving-zimbabwe-cultural-heritage
Brazilian National Standards (ABNT)
JACOBSEN, Scott Douglas. Tauya Chinama on Theodicy, Humanism, and Preserving Zimbabwe’s Cultural Heritage. In-Sight: Interviews, Fort Langley, v. 13, n. 4, 15 dez. 2025. Disponível em: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/tauya-chinama-theodicy-humanism-preserving-zimbabwe-cultural-heritage
Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (17th Edition)
Jacobsen, Scott Douglas. 2025. “Tauya Chinama on Theodicy, Humanism, and Preserving Zimbabwe’s Cultural Heritage.” In-Sight: Interviews 13 (4). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/tauya-chinama-theodicy-humanism-preserving-zimbabwe-cultural-heritage.
Chicago/Turabian, Notes & Bibliography (17th Edition)
Jacobsen, Scott Douglas. “Tauya Chinama on Theodicy, Humanism, and Preserving Zimbabwe’s Cultural Heritage.” In-Sight: Interviews 13, no. 4 (December 15, 2025). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/tauya-chinama-theodicy-humanism-preserving-zimbabwe-cultural-heritage.
Harvard
Jacobsen, S.D. (2025) ‘Tauya Chinama on Theodicy, Humanism, and Preserving Zimbabwe’s Cultural Heritage’, In-Sight: Interviews, 13(4), 15 December. Available at: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/tauya-chinama-theodicy-humanism-preserving-zimbabwe-cultural-heritage.
Harvard (Australian)
Jacobsen, SD 2025, ‘Tauya Chinama on Theodicy, Humanism, and Preserving Zimbabwe’s Cultural Heritage’, In-Sight: Interviews, vol. 13, no. 4, 15 December, viewed 15 December 2025, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/tauya-chinama-theodicy-humanism-preserving-zimbabwe-cultural-heritage.
Modern Language Association (MLA, 9th Edition)
Jacobsen, Scott Douglas. “Tauya Chinama on Theodicy, Humanism, and Preserving Zimbabwe’s Cultural Heritage.” In-Sight: Interviews, vol. 13, no. 4, 2025, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/tauya-chinama-theodicy-humanism-preserving-zimbabwe-cultural-heritage.
Vancouver/ICMJE
Jacobsen SD. Tauya Chinama on Theodicy, Humanism, and Preserving Zimbabwe’s Cultural Heritage [Internet]. 2025 Dec 15;13(4). Available from: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/tauya-chinama-theodicy-humanism-preserving-zimbabwe-cultural-heritage
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.
Share this:
Scott Douglas Jacobsen (Email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com)
Publisher, In-Sight Publishing
Fort Langley, British Columbia, Canada
Received: November 18, 2025
Accepted: December 15, 2025
Published: December 15, 2025
Abstract
This year-end conversation with Dr. Nasser Yousefi and Baran Yousefi—creators of the Peace School, a Canadian humanistic lab school—examines the school’s 2025 growth and its educational philosophy. The Yousefis describe increased enrolment, the addition of childcare, and new baby-and-parent workshops, alongside expanding partnerships with libraries, community centres, universities, and community organizations spanning nutrition, sport, music, and gardening. They also discuss how a public “call” has attracted support from notable philosophers and inclusive-education scholars, strengthening the Peace School’s visibility within academic and professional networks. Substantively, the interview critiques behaviourist, test-driven schooling and its cultural incentives toward competition, ranking, and narrow instructional priorities. The Yousefis argue that such systems erode empathy, democratic participation, and peace-oriented social development, while limiting families’ real educational choice. They propose educational diversity as a democratic necessity and advocate for child-centred learning grounded in emotional intelligence, relational development, and love as an explicit educational value. The conversation frames the Peace School as both a local community institution and an emerging node in a wider international network of progressive educators focused on inclusive, humane learning for children and families.
Keywords
Academic Partnerships, Child-Centred Education, Community Partnerships, Democratic Education, Educational Diversity, Emotional Intelligence, Holistic Development, Humanistic Education, Inclusive Education, Lab School, Love in Education, Peace Education
Introduction
The Peace School is a Canadian lab school created by Dr. Nasser Yousefi and Baran Yousefi to test and model a humanistic, child-centred approach to education. Rather than organizing schooling around grades, rankings, and performance incentives, the Peace School foregrounds relationships, values, and critical thinking as central features of childhood development. The Yousefis’ work sits in tension with dominant behaviourist and test-driven frameworks that treat learning as measurable output and motivation as an engineering problem—reward, punishment, repeat.
In this year-end conversation, Scott Douglas Jacobsen speaks with the Yousefis about the Peace School’s 2025 developments and the philosophical commitments underlying them. They report expanded enrolment, the launch of baby-and-parent programming, and growing ties with community infrastructure such as libraries and community centres. They also describe emerging collaborations with universities and specialized organizations in areas including nutrition, sport, music, and gardening. A public “call” associated with the school has drawn interest from scholars and public intellectuals—support that the Yousefis frame less as marketing muscle than as reputational and academic leverage for building legitimacy and networks.
Beyond updates, the discussion confronts a deeper question: what kind of citizens do schools quietly manufacture? The Yousefis argue that early conditioning through competition, comparison, and ranking cultivates a zero-sum worldview that can scale into social conflict. In response, they advocate educational diversity as a democratic principle—families should have meaningful choices among genuinely different pedagogical models—and they make an unusually explicit claim for contemporary education: that love, emotional intelligence, and holistic development should be treated not as sentimental extras, but as foundational educational aims.
Main Text (Interview)
Title: How the Peace School Is Redefining Education: Dr. Nasser Yousefi and Baran Yousefi on Love, Democracy, and Learning in 2025
Interviewer: Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Interviewees: Nasser Yousefi and Baran Yousefi
Dr. Nasser Yousefi and Baran Yousefi are the creators of the Peace School, a Canadian lab school dedicated to humanistic, child-centred education. Drawing on backgrounds in psychology, pedagogy, and community work, they design environments where children explore relationships, values, and critical thinking rather than merely perform for grades or rankings. Their work challenges behaviourist, test-driven schooling by foregrounding emotional intelligence, democratic participation, and love as core educational principles. Through collaborations with universities, community partners, and international scholars, they aim to build a global network of progressive educators committed to inclusive, peace-oriented learning for children and families worldwide today and tomorrow.
In this year-end conversation, Scott Douglas Jacobsen speaks with Nasser and Baran about the Peace School’s 2025 developments. They describe expanding enrollment, launching baby-and-parent programs, and building partnerships with libraries, community centres, and universities. A public “call” has attracted notable supporters, including philosophers and inclusive-education scholars, strengthening the school’s reputation as a humanistic lab school. The Yousefis critique behaviourist, test-focused education and argue that competition, rankings, and narrow literacy-math priorities undermine peace, empathy, and democracy. They envision schools grounded in love, emotional intelligence, and educational diversity, where all children develop holistically within caring, democratic, global communities everywhere.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Here we are once again for our year-end review with Nasser and Baran, to talk about the Peace School. For 2025, what is the latest update for the Peace School?
Dr. Nasser Yousefi and Baran Yousefi: We had more students, first of all. We have started adding the child-care program. We are offering baby-and-mommy or baby-and-daddy workshops. We are also connecting with community-based groups, including the library and community centers. We have been connecting with academic institutions, including universities, as well as organizations that focus on subjects such as nutrition, sports, music, and gardening. These specialized organizations have been drawn to the school and are very interested.
We also had interviews with local newspapers in Newmarket. We are working on the philosophy academically while also connecting with the community. But we still have a long way to go in reaching people in local communities because we do not yet know how to get them effectively or how to market the school.
Developing and sharing the call—the document—helped us become more recognized by specialized individuals. Many of them have reached out. They want to learn more about the school and explore how we can collaborate in different ways. These are people we previously only read about in books. They are supporting the school and the idea behind it, and they want their names on the list. It is encouraging because many people now recognize that education needs to change so we can better support children, and that we need to bring more living values and humanist values into education.
One of those people is Dr. Christopher DiCarlo, a Canadian philosopher, educator, and author known for his work on critical thinking. After he read the document—the call—he reached out himself and asked to have his name on the list. Another is Dr. Ferris, a British philosopher with anarchist leanings who advocates for distributing power in education so that no single actor holds sole authority. She is also on the list. There is also Dr. Frank J. Müller from Germany, a leading figure in inclusive education at the University of Bremen, and Richard Fransham.
I can take the names of those documents. We also want to mention Bria Bloom, Aron Borger, Je’anna Clements, Kenneth Danford, Georga Dowling, Theresa Dunn, Jackie Eldridge, Hannah Fisher, Henning Graner, Gabriel Groiss, Vida Heidari, Iman Ibrahim, Shalie Jelenic, Terence Lovat, Arash Mansouri, Earl Albert Mentor, Charlie Moreno-Romero, Alex O’Neill, Simon Parcher, Nick Quartey, Chap Rosoff, Judy Sebba, Jo Symes, and Yuko Uesugi.
Jacobsen: So you have built a list of reputable figures doing important work in their specific disciplines, industries, or areas of specialization. How do you leverage that as a lab school to attract more students, improve education, and build an international network around humanistic education so it becomes a household name, like Montessori or others?
Yousefis: We can rely on their help and support and draw on their knowledge, expertise, and resources within the principles and vision—but not in the practical promotion of the school.
Jacobsen: So you are not going to see someone like Chris DiCarlo or Lloyd Robertson serving as a substitute teacher.
Yousefis: No. Or as people who bring more students.
Jacobsen: Sure. Can you leverage them for advising, networking, and webinars?
Yousefis: Yes, or for helping us become more nationally or internationally recognized.
Jacobsen: So it is reputational leverage.
Yousefis: Yes. Most of them are professors at universities or academic professionals. They can classify our documents and resources and share them in educational environments. They can help us become more recognized among students in education programs. They can help spread the idea of the school among students, professors, and academic communities.
We also had some conservative individuals who, after reading the document, were concerned and hesitant to support it. They see it as the opposite of the behaviourist approach— the complete opposite. But we are trying to explain that it is not the opposite; it is another approach. We are not saying the behaviourist approach should not exist or that this is the best one. We are saying the behaviourist method works for some, and this one can work for others.
We want to help communities discuss educational diversity beyond the mainstream, classical approach. Families should be able to decide where to send their children. Having diversity in the educational system is, in a sense, a democratic way of thinking. You cannot call a country democratic if there is only one type of school or one method. One of the main principles of democratic ideology is inclusivity and diversity.
There are many schools with different names, but they only differ in name; they still promote the same approach. Montessori schools are great, but they are not fundamentally different from behaviourist schools. In the end, most schools encourage competition and comparison among children, and this mindset begins early— the mentality of competition, comparison, and ultimately conflict.
When you teach children and encourage them to compete with other students, they eventually internalize competition as a worldview. As they grow up, that mindset can lead them into forms of conflict. Schools that promote rewards—raising one student higher because they perform better on tests—can create patterns where those children later seek rewards in ways that may not always be ethical.
Some education specialists even say we should not teach children to think about others’ well-being. They argue that children should focus solely on themselves and on their own success. They claim that thinking about others comes from sociological ideologies.
But thinking about others—their needs, how we can support them—is part of being human.
Jacobsen: There is an African concept, Ubuntu: “I am because you are.”
I follow what you are saying. If you build competition on comparisons and classroom rankings, children eventually graduate with the mindset they formed when their brains were most malleable. As adults, they continue comparing themselves socioeconomically and otherwise. It creates a vertical mindset.
They enter a kind of zero-sum competition in society, shaped by early comparisons and competitive conditioning. And that competition mindset—when people collide in that way—does not create peace; it creates conflict.
You do not only mean physical war—Kalashnikovs and drones. You mean conflict, zero-sum thinking, and limited resources. And, as you point out, it begins in the educational system. It is very subtle.
Yousefis: When he was researching education departments in Canadian universities, 18 out of 20 professors specialized in literacy, mathematics, or science. No professors or researchers were working on progressive education in any meaningful way.
Jacobsen: That matches international priorities around PISA testing—reading, writing, arithmetic. And this is considered education internationally.
Yousefis: No one was teaching about diversity within education. Or emotional intelligence. Or holistic development. But education is not only reading, writing, math, and science. This ideology deceived or misled families.
Jacobsen: If it is built into the system, much of it can operate unconsciously.
Yousefis: A family does not know it. They do not know. They rely on specialists, who end up misleading them. They show them the wrong path, and they limit children and students. And with the technology we have now, including AI, it is incorrect to restrict students to the boundaries that teachers decide.
Limiting them to set amounts of information is not enough. We need to help children gain experience, meet people, and form friendships. It is strange to him that, even today, schools in Canada are afraid to talk about love. They teach sex education, but they do not teach love. He does not understand it. You have to teach love first.
The rest can be taught at appropriate times as needed. And this is not just in Canada; it is the same in Europe and in many Asian countries. People say that if children learn about love, they will become spoiled. He believes the opposite: that if they learn about love, they will become softer and kinder.
A student who learns about love will learn to love people, nature, animals—everything. Children will learn that others have come to love the world as well. When someone loves something, they naturally seek information about it. If a child loves something, they will go and learn about it. He cannot say this everywhere because he will be judged. Some people ask why we should teach love, claiming it is not necessary.
But one day, schools around the world will become places where love is the foundation of teaching. Schools will become loving places for students. This future is not close, but eventually it will come.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Nasser and Baran.
Discussion
The Yousefis present the Peace School as both a practical institution and a philosophical intervention: a working demonstration that education can be organized around relational development, emotional intelligence, and democratic participation rather than behavioural compliance and test performance. Their 2025 updates—expanded enrolment, childcare, baby-and-parent workshops, and partnerships with libraries, community centres, universities, and specialized community organizations—signal a school attempting to embed itself in the civic ecosystem rather than exist as an isolated alternative. The emphasis on community integration also underscores a recurring tension in progressive education: building credibility and reach without flattening the model into a brand exercise.
A notable development is the role of the school’s public “call” in attracting scholarly and professional supporters. The Yousefis describe this as reputational leverage rather than direct recruitment: academics and specialists can circulate the Peace School’s ideas through education programs, professional networks, and public discourse, helping the project gain recognition nationally and internationally. This points to a plausible strategy for lab schools: legitimacy often travels through institutions of knowledge production before it reaches mass family decision-making. At the same time, their remarks reveal a persistent operational challenge—local visibility and marketing—suggesting that ideas can gain elite recognition while remaining obscure in the communities that could most immediately benefit.
The interview’s most substantive critique targets the competitive architecture of mainstream schooling. The Yousefis argue that early ranking, reward-based motivation, and narrow curricular priorities can normalize comparison and scarcity-thinking, shaping children toward a “vertical” worldview that later expresses itself in social conflict and ethical corner-cutting. In their account, the issue is not only academic outcomes but moral and civic formation: competition-as-default undermines empathy and peace, and it narrows the meaning of education to what can be measured. Their observation that university education departments overwhelmingly prioritize literacy, mathematics, and science research—while giving little attention to progressive education, educational diversity, or emotional intelligence—extends the critique upward, implying that teacher training and policy ecosystems reproduce the same limited definition of schooling.
Finally, the Yousefis’ insistence on teaching love—explicitly, seriously, and early—functions as both the conversation’s most provocative claim and its unifying thesis. They argue that love is not indulgence but a developmental foundation that strengthens kindness, care for nature and others, intrinsic curiosity, and the motivation to learn. In a world where schools can deliver sex education while treating love as unprofessional or taboo, their stance reframes “values” education as a central, not peripheral, task. Whether or not one accepts every element of their diagnosis, the Peace School is presented here as a deliberate counter-model: an attempt to make peace-oriented, inclusive, humanistic education concrete, scalable through networks, and credible as a legitimate option within a genuinely democratic landscape of schooling.
Methods
The interview was conducted via typed questions—with explicit consent—for 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 if any 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.)
Journal & Article Details
Publisher: In-Sight Publishing
Publisher Founding: March 1, 2014
Web Domain: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com
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: 4
Section: A
Theme Type: Discipline
Theme Premise: Humanistic Education
Theme Part: None.
Formal Sub-Theme: None.
Individual Publication Date: December 15, 2025
Issue Publication Date: January 1, 2026
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Word Count: 1,626
Image Credits: Photo by National Cancer Institute on Unsplash
ISSN (International Standard Serial Number): 2369-6885
Acknowledgements
The author acknowledges Nasser Yousefi and Baran Yousefi for their 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.
Competing Interests
The author declares no competing interests.
License & Copyright
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012–Present.
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 How the Peace School Is Redefining Education: Dr. Nasser Yousefi and Baran Yousefi on Love, Democracy, and Learning in 2025 (Scott Douglas Jacobsen, December 15, 2025).
American Medical Association (AMA 11th Edition)
Jacobsen SD. How the Peace School Is Redefining Education: Dr. Nasser Yousefi and Baran Yousefi on Love, Democracy, and Learning in 2025. In-Sight: Interviews. 2025;13(4). Published December 15, 2025. http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/how-peace-school-redefining-education
American Psychological Association (APA 7th Edition)
Jacobsen, S. D. (2025, December 15). How the Peace School is Redefining Education: Dr. Nasser Yousefi and Baran Yousefi on Love, Democracy, and Learning in 2025. In-Sight: Interviews, 13(4). In-Sight Publishing. http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/how-peace-school-redefining-education
Brazilian National Standards (ABNT)
JACOBSEN, Scott Douglas. How the Peace School Is Redefining Education: Dr. Nasser Yousefi and Baran Yousefi on Love, Democracy, and Learning in 2025. In-Sight: Interviews, Fort Langley, v. 13, n. 4, 15 dez. 2025. Disponível em: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/how-peace-school-redefining-education
Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (17th Edition)
Jacobsen, Scott Douglas. 2025. “How the Peace School Is Redefining Education: Dr. Nasser Yousefi and Baran Yousefi on Love, Democracy, and Learning in 2025.” In-Sight: Interviews 13 (4). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/how-peace-school-redefining-education.
Chicago/Turabian, Notes & Bibliography (17th Edition)
Jacobsen, Scott Douglas. “How the Peace School Is Redefining Education: Dr. Nasser Yousefi and Baran Yousefi on Love, Democracy, and Learning in 2025.” In-Sight: Interviews 13, no. 4 (December 15, 2025). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/how-peace-school-redefining-education.
Harvard
Jacobsen, S.D. (2025) ‘How the Peace School Is Redefining Education: Dr. Nasser Yousefi and Baran Yousefi on Love, Democracy, and Learning in 2025’, In-Sight: Interviews, 13(4), 15 December. Available at: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/how-peace-school-redefining-education.
Harvard (Australian)
Jacobsen, SD 2025, ‘How the Peace School Is Redefining Education: Dr. Nasser Yousefi and Baran Yousefi on Love, Democracy, and Learning in 2025’, In-Sight: Interviews, vol. 13, no. 4, 15 December, viewed 15 December 2025, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/how-peace-school-redefining-education.
Modern Language Association (MLA, 9th Edition)
Jacobsen, Scott Douglas. “How the Peace School Is Redefining Education: Dr. Nasser Yousefi and Baran Yousefi on Love, Democracy, and Learning in 2025.” In-Sight: Interviews, vol. 13, no. 4, 2025, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/how-peace-school-redefining-education.
Vancouver/ICMJE
Jacobsen SD. How the Peace School Is Redefining Education: Dr. Nasser Yousefi and Baran Yousefi on Love, Democracy, and Learning in 2025 [Internet]. 2025 Dec 15;13(4). Available from: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/how-peace-school-redefining-education
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.
Share this:
Dr. Nasser Yousefi
Educator, The Peace School
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Correspondence: Dr. Nasser Yousefi (Email: yosofi.nasser@gmail.com)
Received: September 24, 2025
Accepted: December 15, 2025
Published: December 15, 2025
Abstract
This statement issues an urgent call from The Peace School’s Board of Directors and international Board of Advisors for a worldwide shift toward humanistic, democratic, peace-oriented, and rights-based education. While many educational initiatives endorse one of these ideals, the central argument here is that democracy, peacebuilding, and humanism must be intentionally integrated: democratic structures do not automatically produce peace, and peace-centred programs are not always democratic. Grounded in humanistic psychology and child-rights principles, the statement frames students as present-day rights-holders—seen, heard, and meaningfully involved in shaping their learning alongside educators, families, and communities. It proposes the formation of a Global Network of Humanistic School Advocates to coordinate collaboration among policymakers, educators, academics, and school leaders. The goal is practical and ethical: build learning environments that advance empathy, critical thinking, equity, nonviolence, sustainability, and respect for international human rights commitments, while reducing harmful competitive pressures that can narrow education into mere performance.
Keywords
Child Rights, Critical Thinking, Democratic Education, Education for Peace, Educational Equity, Global Network, Human Dignity, Humanistic Education, Inclusive Education, Nonviolence, Participation Rights, Peacebuilding, Rights-Based Education, Sustainability
Introduction
Education systems everywhere are being asked to do the impossible: raise academic achievement, protect mental health, strengthen social cohesion, and prepare young people for a world of accelerating conflict, misinformation, and ecological strain—while still somehow leaving room for joy, curiosity, and meaning. In that pressure cooker, “better schooling” is often reduced to metrics, compliance, and competition. Yet children are not spreadsheets with backpacks. They are people—rights-holders now, not merely future citizens in storage.
This statement from The Peace School’s Board of Directors and its international Board of Advisors advances a clear proposition: a credible education fit for the twenty-first century must be humanistic, democratic, peace-oriented, and rights-based—and these pillars must be pursued together. Democracy without peacebuilding can normalize adversarial cultures and social exclusion; peace programming without democratic participation can become top-down moral instruction; humanistic ideals without enforceable rights can remain aspirational rhetoric. The Peace School therefore frames its work as an open, collaborative educational philosophy rather than a proprietary model, inviting institutions worldwide to join a shared effort through a Global Network of Humanistic School Advocates.
Within this approach, humanistic education is not sentimentalism; it is a structured commitment to dignity, inclusion, and whole-person development across intellectual, social, cultural, and emotional life. Students are encouraged to cultivate empathy and critical inquiry, to speak and be heard, to participate in shaping learning content and community norms, and to pursue solutions to real problems with an ethic of nonviolence and human rights. Families and local communities are treated as partners rather than spectators. The overarching aim is straightforward and demanding: build educational environments that nurture minds and hearts while aligning everyday school practice with the universal principles articulated in child-rights and democratic-culture frameworks.
Main Text (Article)
Title: Call for Promoting Humanistic Education
Author: Dr. Nasser Yousefi
Dr. Nasser Yousefi is a psychologist and education specialist. He has been working with children for over three decades and for the past twenty years has been managing a humanistic school.
The Peace School’s Board of Advisors and Board of Directors are issuing an urgent call to promote humanistic, democratic, peace-oriented, and rights-based education worldwide.
We invite policymakers, educators, academics, and school leaders to join this important movement and become part of the Global Network of Humanistic School Advocates, a collaborative effort to advance inclusive and values-based education for all children.
Together, we can amplify this message, inspire change, and create a global community committed to education that nurtures both minds and hearts. We encourage all supporters to share this call within their communities and professional networks.
—
We, as a group of experts in the field of child education and advisors at The Peace School, invite all educational institutions to join us in promoting democracy, peacebuilding, and humanism. The Peace School in Canada warmly invites all educational centers, professionals, organizations, and individuals who are passionate about fostering a culture of peace to engage in meaningful collaboration.
Though we are an independent school based in Ontario, Canada, we do not define ourselves by the walls of a building or the limited number of students in a remote corner of the world. The Peace School has officially introduced itself as a school rooted in humanistic psychology and an alternative, human-centred approach to education and committed to providing equitable and inclusive learning opportunities for all students, without discrimination.
Humanistic education is a pedagogical approach founded on respect for human dignity and the diverse individual, social, cultural, and group differences of all learners. It emphasizes the holistic development of each student within their closer and wider communities, while fostering empathy, freedom, and a sense of meaning in the learning journey. This approach views the child not merely as a recipient of knowledge but as a full and active human being. A child who needs to be seen, heard, and given space to thrive. In a humanistic system, students have the right to choose and participate in planning and shaping the content of their learning alongside educators, families, and their local communities.
We are a democratic, peace-oriented, rights-based and humanistic school.
Yet we believe that being democratic alone does not guarantee peace, and peace-centred systems are not always inherently democratic. That’s why we emphasize the importance of uniting three guiding principles: democracy, peacebuilding, and humanism. Together, they can lead us to a better world.
The Peace School’s Board of Directors and its international Board of Advisors (comprised of some of the most respected experts in the field) believe that our vision and programs should not be confined to our school alone, but need to actively engage and collaborate with like-minded institutions and organizations.
Our educational philosophy is open to all schools and learning institutions.
We do not see our work as being in competition with any educational organization. Rather, we genuinely invite all institutions, professionals, and educational leaders worldwide to join us in promoting schools that are peaceful, humanistic, and democratic.
What Can Humanistic Schools Offer?
We want to prepare the world to be a better place for everyone.
We empower students to practice empathy, compassion, cooperation, and love for humanity. We go beyond memorization, helping students engage with learning that is shaped by life. We respect individual needs while prioritizing collective well-being.
We empower students to ask questions, think critically, create boldly, and seek just solutions to real-life challenges.
We practice equity and fairness with all students, in both content and relationships. We free students from the stress of competition, comparison, grading, and the obsession with individual success at any cost.
We give students the chance to speak, express opinions, pursue dreams, and take part in shaping their own educational journey.
We invite families to be active participants in shaping content, organizing curriculum, and co building progressive education.
We prepare learners to lead lives based on nonviolence, sustainability, and respect for all international human rights and peace treaties.
We believe this vision can lead us to a future where policymakers and global leaders put human dignity and collective well-being at the heart of every plan and policy.
We deeply believe in the transformative power of education to build a peaceful future. And to reach that future, we must begin today, together.
Join Us
We invite you to be a part of this movement.
Contact us
info@thepeaceschool.com
Share your skills, your expertise, your passion.
Together, we can build the schools and the future, the future the world truly needs.
Names of Experts, Alphabetically Arranged:
Clements, Je’anna, Author and expert on peace and democracy education. South Africa Dowling, Georga, Professional in Early Childhood Education. Ireland
Dunn, Theresa, Peace Professional & Community. Canada
Dr. Firth, Rhiannon, Professor of Sociology of Education , England
Fisher, Hannah, an international film programmer. Canada
Fransham, Richard, Lead Education Specialist and Director of Uniting for Children and Youth. Canada
Groiss, Gabriel, Lead Specialist in Democratic Education. Germany
Graner, Henning, Lead Specialist in Democratic Education. Germany
Heidari, Vida, Children’s art specialist. Canada
Ibrahim, Iman, Author, Expert in Life Coaching, Leadership and Conflict Resolution, Canada
Jacobsen, Scott Douglas, Author, editor‑in‑chief and publisher. Canada
Jelenic, Shalie, practitioner of yoga philosophy. Canada
Dr. Mansouri, Arash, entrepreneur and technology leader. Canada
Dr. Moreno-Romero, Charlie, Lead Specialist in Democratic Education, Estonia
Dr. Müller, Frank J., Professor of Inclusive Education. Germany
Parcher, Simon, President, Humanist Perspectives Magazine. Canada
Dr. Robertson, Lloyd Hawkeye, Lead Professor of Counselling Psychology. Canada Uesugi, Yuko, Global and Bilingual Education Expert. Japan
Yousefi, Baran, Health Policy and Management Specialist. Canada
Dr. Yousefi, Nasser, Specialist in Humanistic education. Canada
Note: This statement draws upon the theoretical perspectives of prominent psychologists and humanistic education scholars, including Carol Rogers, Abraham Maslow, Paulo Freire, and Loris Malaguzzi.
Discussion
This statement presents humanistic education as a practical response to current educational and social pressures: polarization, violence, inequity, and systems that reward competition over community. Its central contribution is the insistence that democracy, peacebuilding, and humanism should be treated as an integrated framework rather than separate agendas. Participation without dignity can become coercive; peace without rights can become silence; humanism without civic structure can remain personal rather than institutional.
The Peace School’s proposed global network functions as an organizing mechanism for shared standards, mutual learning, and coordinated advocacy. By emphasizing student voice, family participation, nonviolence, inclusion without discrimination, and whole-child development, the call reframes schooling as a human rights project with measurable ethical obligations. The list of international advisors also signals an intent to build legitimacy through expertise and cross-cultural engagement, while maintaining a non-competitive, collaborative posture toward other educational institutions.
Methods
This is an authored public-policy commentary grounded in publicly available reporting and institutional indicators. It underwent light editorial review for clarity, grammar, and house style, with targeted verification of major institutional claims where source documents were identifiable.
Data Availability
No datasets were generated or analyzed for this article. Claims and contextual indicators are drawn from publicly available institutional publications and reporting.
References
United Nations. (1989). Convention on the Rights of the Child. Treaty Series, 1577, 3.
UNESCO, Futures of Education Report – Reimagining our futures together: A new social contract for education, 2021
Council of Europe, Reference Framework of Competences for Democratic Culture, 2016
UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights Report on the right to education – Securing the right to education: advances
Journal & Article Details
Publisher: In-Sight Publishing
Web Domain: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com
Location: Fort Langley, Township of Langley, British Columbia, Canada
Journal: In-Sight: Interviews
Review Status: Non-Peer-Reviewed
Access: Electronic/Digital & Open Access
Fees: None (Free)
Volume Numbering: 13
Issue Numbering: 4
Section: B
Theme Type: Discipline
Theme Premise: Human Rights/Social Policy
Individual Publication Date: December 15, 2025
Issue Publication Date: January 1, 2026
Author(s): Dr. Nasser Yousefi
Word Count: 972
Image Credits: Nasser Yousefi
ISSN: 2369-6885
Acknowledgements
None stated.
Author Contributions
Dr. Nasser Yousefi wrote the article as sole author. Light editorial review and formatting were applied for house style.
Competing Interests
The author declares no competing interests.
License & Copyright
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012–Present.
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 Call for Promoting Humanistic Education (Dr. Nasser Yousefi, December 15, 2025).
American Medical Association (AMA 11th Edition)
Yousefi N. Call for Promoting Humanistic Education. December 15, 2025;13(4). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/call-for-promoting-humanistic-education
American Psychological Association (APA 7th Edition)
Yousefi, N. (2025, December 15). Call for promoting humanistic education. In-Sight: Interviews, 13(4). In-Sight Publishing. http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/call-for-promoting-humanistic-education
Brazilian National Standards (ABNT)
YOUSEFI, N. Call for Promoting Humanistic Education. In-Sight: Interviews, Fort Langley, v. 13, n. 4, 15 dez. 2025. Disponível em: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/call-for-promoting-humanistic-education
Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (17th Edition)
Yousefi, Nasser. 2025. “Call for Promoting Humanistic Education.” In-Sight: Interviews 13 (4). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/call-for-promoting-humanistic-education.
Chicago/Turabian, Notes & Bibliography (17th Edition)
Yousefi, Nasser. “Call for Promoting Humanistic Education.” In-Sight: Interviews 13, no. 4 (December 15, 2025). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/call-for-promoting-humanistic-education.
Harvard
Yousefi, N. (2025) ‘Call for Promoting Humanistic Education’, In-Sight: Interviews, 13(4), 15 December. Available at: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/call-for-promoting-humanistic-education.
Harvard (Australian)
Yousefi, N 2025, ‘Call for Promoting Humanistic Education’, In-Sight: Interviews, vol. 13, no. 4, 15 December, viewed 15 December 2025, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/call-for-promoting-humanistic-education.
Modern Language Association (MLA, 9th Edition)
Yousefi, Nasser. “Call for Promoting Humanistic Education.” In-Sight: Interviews, vol. 13, no. 4, 2025, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/call-for-promoting-humanistic-education.
Vancouver/ICMJE
Yousefi N. Call for promoting humanistic education [Internet]. 2025 Dec 15;13(4). Available from: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/call-for-promoting-humanistic-education
Note on Formatting
This document follows an adapted Nature-style research-article format tailored for public-facing analysis and commentary: Abstract, Keywords, Introduction, Main Text (Article), and Discussion, followed by transparency sections (Methods, Data Availability, References, and publication metadata).
Share this:
Dr. Nasser Yousefi (Email: yosofi.nasser@gmail.com)
Educator, The Peace School
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Received: January 6, 2025
Accepted: December 15, 2025
Published: December 15, 2025
Abstract
This article examines whether Canada can credibly be described as a “child-friendly country” when assessed against international child-rights standards. It situates the question within Canada’s longstanding self-image as a rights-respecting society and its obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and related optional protocols. Drawing on publicly reported indicators highlighted by UNICEF Canada—spanning poverty, hunger, discrimination, bullying, mental health, and child safety—it argues that Canada’s outcomes for children and youth lag behind what might be expected of a wealthy country with strong institutional capacity. The article further emphasizes inequities affecting Indigenous children, including barriers tied to language, healthcare access, safe water, and healthy food environments. The central claim is that meaningful child-friendliness requires more than broad goodwill: it requires measurable progress across survival, development, protection, and participation rights, backed by policy renewal, accountability, and sustained cross-sector action.
Keywords
Canada, Child-Friendly Policy, Children’s Rights, Convention on the Rights of the Child, Discrimination, Food Insecurity, Indigenous Children, Poverty, Participation Rights, UNICEF Report Cards
Introduction
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 early countries to commit to the 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), and Canada has also joined optional protocols addressing the involvement of children in armed conflict and 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, the concept of “good” is always relative: good compared to what, in what context, and under what conditions? Understanding the precise status of children’s rights in Canada requires a framework of standards, indicators, and principles that align with international benchmarks. Declaring a country’s child welfare status as “good” or “bad” without proper scientific and detailed evaluation is neither accurate nor valid.
Main Text (Article)
Title: Can Canada Be Recognized as a Child-Friendly Country?
Author: Dr. Nasser Yousefi
Dr. Nasser Yousefi is a psychologist and education specialist. He has been working with children for over three decades and for the past twenty years has been managing a humanistic school.
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.
Nasser Yousefi
The Peace School
Discussion
The article frames “child-friendly country” as an evidence-based designation rather than a branding exercise. That move matters: international human rights commitments become practical only when translated into measurable conditions of life. Canada’s CRC commitments (and its optional protocols) set a baseline obligation to protect children’s rights without discrimination, including policy and institutional duties—not merely charitable aspirations.
The UNICEF Canada indicators highlighted here function as a rough diagnostic: they do not exhaust the field of child well-being, but they signal persistent gaps that are difficult to reconcile with Canada’s capacity and self-understanding. The section on Indigenous children further underscores that “national averages” can conceal severe inequities rooted in language, geography, service delivery, and the legacies of colonial governance.
Finally, the essay’s emphasis on participation rights is a strategic policy point. Participation is often treated as a soft add-on, but the CRC treats it as a core right: children are not merely future citizens-in-training; they are present-day rights-holders. Strengthening structured avenues for student voice and youth participation would therefore be a concrete, standards-aligned step toward a more credible “child-friendly” claim.
Methods
This is an authored public-policy commentary grounded in publicly available reporting and institutional indicators. It underwent light editorial review for clarity, grammar, and house style, with targeted verification of major institutional claims where source documents were identifiable.
Data Availability
No datasets were generated or analyzed for this article. Claims and contextual indicators are drawn from publicly available institutional publications and reporting.
References
None stipulated.
Journal & Article Details
Publisher: In-Sight Publishing
Web Domain: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com
Location: Fort Langley, Township of Langley, British Columbia, Canada
Journal: In-Sight: Interviews
Review Status: Non-Peer-Reviewed
Access: Electronic/Digital & Open Access
Fees: None (Free)
Volume Numbering: 13
Issue Numbering: 4
Section: B
Theme Type: Discipline
Theme Premise: Human Rights/Social Policy
Individual Publication Date: December 15, 2025
Issue Publication Date: January 1, 2026
Author(s): Dr. Nasser Yousefi
Word Count: 1,116
Image Credits: Nasser Yousefi
ISSN: 2369-6885
Acknowledgements
None stated.
Author Contributions
Dr. Nasser Yousefi wrote the article as sole author. Light editorial review and formatting were applied for house style.
Competing Interests
The author declares no competing interests.
License & Copyright
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012–Present.
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? (Dr. Nasser Yousefi, December 15, 2025).
American Medical Association (AMA 11th Edition)
Yousefi N. Can Canada Be Recognized as a Child-Friendly Country? December 15, 2025;13(4). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/can-canada-be-recognized-as-a-child-friendly-country
American Psychological Association (APA 7th Edition)
Yousefi, N. (2025, December 15). Can Canada be recognized as a child-friendly country? In-Sight: Interviews, 13(4). In-Sight Publishing. http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/can-canada-be-recognized-as-a-child-friendly-country
Brazilian National Standards (ABNT)
YOUSEFI, N. Can Canada Be Recognized as a Child-Friendly Country? In-Sight: Interviews, Fort Langley, v. 13, n. 4, 15 dez. 2025. Disponível em: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/can-canada-be-recognized-as-a-child-friendly-country
Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (17th Edition)
Yousefi, Nasser. 2025. “Can Canada Be Recognized as a Child-Friendly Country?” In-Sight: Interviews 13 (4). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/can-canada-be-recognized-as-a-child-friendly-country.
Chicago/Turabian, Notes & Bibliography (17th Edition)
Yousefi, Nasser. “Can Canada Be Recognized as a Child-Friendly Country?” In-Sight: Interviews 13, no. 4 (December 15, 2025). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/can-canada-be-recognized-as-a-child-friendly-country.
Harvard
Yousefi, N. (2025) ‘Can Canada Be Recognized as a Child-Friendly Country?’, In-Sight: Interviews, 13(4), 15 December. Available at: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/can-canada-be-recognized-as-a-child-friendly-country.
Harvard (Australian)
Yousefi, N 2025, ‘Can Canada Be Recognized as a Child-Friendly Country?’, In-Sight: Interviews, vol. 13, no. 4, 15 December, viewed 15 December 2025, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/can-canada-be-recognized-as-a-child-friendly-country.
Modern Language Association (MLA, 9th Edition)
Yousefi, Nasser. “Can Canada Be Recognized as a Child-Friendly Country?” In-Sight: Interviews, vol. 13, no. 4, 2025, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/can-canada-be-recognized-as-a-child-friendly-country.
Vancouver/ICMJE
Yousefi N. Can Canada be recognized as a child-friendly country? [Internet]. 2025 Dec 15;13(4). Available from: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/can-canada-be-recognized-as-a-child-friendly-country
Note on Formatting
This document follows an adapted Nature-style research-article format tailored for public-facing analysis and commentary: Abstract, Keywords, Introduction, Main Text (Article), and Discussion, followed by transparency sections (Methods, Data Availability, References, and publication metadata).
Share this:
Scott Douglas Jacobsen (Email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com)
Publisher, In-Sight Publishing
Fort Langley, British Columbia, Canada
Received: September 11, 2025
Accepted: December 15, 2025
Published: December 15, 2025
Abstract
This interview with Professor Meng Li (University of Houston, C.T. Bauer College of Business) examines how social class background shapes the adoption of large language model (LLM) tools—such as ChatGPT—in workplace help-seeking. Li frames AI uptake not only as a productivity choice but as a substitute for hierarchical human support, akin to guidance from supervisors (or professors in academic settings). Drawing on survey and behavioral-experimental evidence with early-career professionals, Li argues that middle-class workers are the most receptive adopters because they combine sufficient resources and familiarity with LLMs with heightened perceived “social interaction costs” when requesting assistance from supervisors. By contrast, lower-class workers face knowledge and confidence barriers, while upper-class workers may be more comfortable leveraging interpersonal channels and human relationships. The conversation extends these findings into practical implications: AI substitution could reshape mentorship, influence managerial perceptions of help-seeking, and intensify stratification unless organizations invest in training, clear usage norms, and equitable support systems. The central claim is that AI integration is not socially neutral; it reconfigures workplace relationships and can either narrow or widen inequality depending on policy design and institutional culture.
Keywords
AI adoption, ChatGPT, Early-career professionals, Help-seeking behavior, Human-centered AI, Large language models, Mentorship, Social class background, Supervisor–employee relations, Workplace inequality, Workplace hierarchy
Introduction
The workplace is often described as a meritocratic machine: perform well, learn quickly, and advancement follows. In practice, modern organizations are also dense social systems—hierarchical, evaluative, and deeply shaped by who feels comfortable asking for help, from whom, and at what perceived cost. The arrival of large language models (LLMs) in everyday workflows introduces a new option into that system: workers can consult an always-available tool rather than a supervisor, colleague, or mentor. That choice can look purely technical—faster answers, fewer interruptions—but it may also be social, reflecting power dynamics and class-shaped habits of interaction.
In this interview, Professor Meng Li, a researcher at the University of Houston’s C.T. Bauer College of Business, explains why social class background is a critical variable for understanding AI uptake at work. Li and colleagues study whether LLM use functions as a substitute for supervisor help, and why middle-class workers appear especially inclined to make that substitution. Their focus on early-career professionals isolates a life stage where guidance is vital, supervisory relationships are formative, and family-of-origin class background can surface even among workers who currently occupy similar education and income brackets.
Rather than treating AI adoption as a uniform wave, Li frames it as a stratified process with equity consequences. If LLM-intensive workplaces reward those who know how to use these tools confidently, and human-centered workplaces reward those who can navigate managerial relationships smoothly, then the “AI era” risks becoming a new sorting mechanism—unless organizations deliberately design training, norms, and support structures to prevent class-based divergence.
Main Text (Interview)
Title: How Social Class Shapes ChatGPT Adoption at Work: Meng Li on AI Help-Seeking, Mentorship, and Workplace Inequality
Interviewer: Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Interviewees: Meng Li
Researchers at the University of Houston’s C.T. Bauer College of Business have found that middle-class workers are the most receptive to using AI tools like ChatGPT at work. Published in the Social Science Research Network, the study analyzed surveys and behavioral experiments with early-career professionals across class backgrounds. The findings suggest middle-class workers adopt AI more readily than their upper- or lower-class peers, who either prefer human supervisors or lack technological familiarity. Bauer Professor Meng Li, co-author and director of UH’s Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence Institute, emphasized that addressing class-based disparities in AI adoption will be key to preventing workplace inequality.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What motivated studying social class as a factor in AI adoption at work?
Professor Meng Li: Social class background plays a central role in shaping individuals’ thoughts and behaviors within hierarchical social systems. It has been shown to influence the development of self-identity, social cognition, social values, and social behaviors, and to extend its impact into key life outcomes such as educational attainment and employment opportunities. In our context, we focus on whether AI adoption could serve as a substitute for supervisors’ help, another form of hierarchical relationship within the workplace, and we thus propose that social class background may also play a role here.
In practice, as business school professors teaching and mentoring students from diverse social class backgrounds, we have observed this dynamic firsthand. Prior to the emergence of AI, students across all social classes regularly sought help during office hours. However, following the widespread availability of tools like ChatGPT, we noted a sharp decline in office hour visits, particularly among students from less affluent middle-class backgrounds, many of whom began turning to AI tools instead of seeking guidance from faculty. Given the parallels between the role of professors in academia and supervisors in the workplace, and the likelihood that students carry these help-seeking behaviors into their professional lives, we were motivated to investigate whether similar patterns also emerge in the workplace settings.
Jacobsen: Why focus on early-career professionals?
Li: The focus of early-career professionals is theoretically and methodologically driven.
On the one hand, they are highly reliant on the supervisor’s help to navigate workplace challenges as they are new to an organization, emphasizing the need for careful examination. On the other hand, as they share a similar current social class (such as similar education attainment, income, and occupation), this could provide a clear context to examine the impact of social class background (i.e., their family/parental social class).
Jacobsen: What unique advantages make middle-class workers comfy with AI?
Li: According to our findings, compared to those from lower-class backgrounds, middle-class individuals may have greater resources and understanding of how to use AI, which makes them more inclined to adopt it. At the same time, they also perceive higher social interaction costs when seeking help from supervisors, further motivating or pushing them to turn to AI for assistance. Together, these dual mechanisms position the middle class as the group most comfortable with using AI relative to other social class backgrounds.
Jacobsen: How do supervisors respond when workers substitute with AI?
Li: In our current research, we do not examine supervisors’ consequential behaviors; rather, we focus on documenting adoption patterns as a first step toward understanding AI’s impact on workplace interpersonal dynamics. Nevertheless, drawing on the dynamics observed in our study, we offer several conjectures. The substitution effect between LLMs and human supervisors may prompt both employees and supervisors to recalibrate their perceptions and help-seeking behaviors. Prior research suggests that individuals who actively seek advice are often perceived as more competent. However, the widespread integration of LLMs in the workplace may alter this perception. Supervisors who are aware that employees have access to LLMs might interpret help-seeking in divergent ways: either as a meaningful effort at relationship-building that merits support, or as an inefficient use of resources. These shifts could influence performance evaluations and, in turn, shape how employees from different social class backgrounds interpret supervisors’ expectations and adjust their help-seeking decisions. Whether such dynamics ultimately mitigate or exacerbate workplace inequality remains an open question for future research.
Jacobsen: What specific barriers face lower-class workers adopting LLMs?
Li: According to our findings, lower-class workers face barriers primarily due to a lack of objective resources for understanding and effectively using LLMs. These barriers include limited knowledge of the capabilities and limitations of such tools, insufficient awareness of the appropriate contexts for their use. As a result, they may be less confident in adopting LLMs compared to their middle-class counterparts.
Jacobsen: Could over-reliance on AI change mentorship dynamics?
Li: This is indeed possible. As AI tools become more capable of addressing workplace challenges, employees may increasingly turn to them as an alternative source of support. Drawing from our research, when workers are faced with the choice between seeking help from supervisors or turning to AI, many may prefer the AI. On the one hand, over-reliance on AI could reduce employees’ reliance on supervisors for guidance, potentially weakening mentorship ties and diminishing opportunities for relationship-building, informal learning, and career development. On the other hand, it might also shift the role of mentorship, pushing supervisors to focus less on routine problem-solving and more on higher-level coaching, strategic advice, and professional development. Such changes could fundamentally reshape workplace dynamics, raising important questions about how organizations can preserve the benefits of mentorship while embracing AI as a complementary tool.
Jacobsen: What policies help level the AI adoption gap?
Li: The answer depends on the organization’s strategic approach. If a company chooses to promote LLM-based systems, it must address employees’ concerns about the capabilities and appropriate contexts for using these tools, concerns that are especially salient among lower-class employees. To mitigate such barriers, organizations can provide comprehensive training programs, practical case studies, and regular feedback sessions to build employees’ confidence and competence in using LLMs. Alternatively, if a company emphasizes human-based systems, it needs to address the high social interaction costs that often deter low- and middle-class employees from seeking help. Policies such as implementing standardized processes for help-seeking, offering inclusive check-ins, and establishing clear communication channels can help reduce power differentials and foster more equitable and accessible support environments.
Jacobsen: How might these findings shape future discussions about equity?
Li: There are two possible directions. First, our study highlights the role of social class background in shaping workplace inequality in the era of AI. Our findings suggest that the rise of LLMs in the workplace may unintentionally deepen social stratification if class-based disparities remain unaddressed. In LLM-intensive environments, lower-class workers, despite overcoming initial employment barriers, may continue to struggle due to limited knowledge and confidence in using such tools, while middle-class workers are better equipped to navigate them effectively. In workplaces that emphasize human-based support, upper-class workers can leverage their stronger interpersonal skills when interacting with supervisors, while middle-class workers may avoid such interactions and instead rely on LLMs. As a result, the advantages held by middle- and upper-class workers risk widening inequality and sparking renewed discussions on equity in the contemporary workplace. Second, by examining AI adoption not only as a productivity-enhancing tool but also as a substitute for human supervisor help, our research shifts the focus toward the interpersonal dynamics AI introduces into the workplace. This perspective invites broader conversations about the unintended social consequences of AI integration, such as its impact on mentorship and relationship-building, which are critical to understanding equity in the future of work.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Meng.
Discussion
Li’s account offers a sociological correction to a common technological myth: that tools diffuse through workplaces simply because they are efficient. In his framing, LLMs enter an existing hierarchy of help-seeking, and adoption becomes an interpersonal strategy as much as a computational one. The key explanatory move is the “substitution” model: workers can replace supervisor assistance with AI assistance, thereby avoiding the vulnerability, status negotiation, and impression management involved in asking a superior for help. Once help-seeking is understood as socially priced, it becomes unsurprising that class background matters—because class shapes how people interpret hierarchy, self-presentation, and the costs of initiating unequal interactions.
The interview’s most consequential claim is the dual-mechanism account of middle-class receptivity. Middle-class workers are positioned as having enough familiarity and resources to use LLMs effectively while also experiencing meaningful social friction in approaching supervisors. That combination makes AI an attractive “quiet help” channel. Lower-class workers, in this account, are constrained less by reluctance than by capability gaps—limited exposure, weaker understanding of appropriate contexts for use, and lower confidence. Upper-class workers, meanwhile, are described as more willing or able to leverage human channels—suggesting that interpersonal ease can function as an alternative advantage in environments where supervisor relationships remain central.
The equity implications are sharp because they cut both ways depending on organizational culture. In LLM-heavy environments, competence with AI becomes a new form of cultural capital, potentially compounding existing opportunity gaps for those without early exposure or training. In human-support-centric environments, social fluency with authority can confer advantages, leaving those who perceive higher interaction costs to either under-seek help or rely on tools that may not provide sponsorship, advocacy, or career visibility. In short: either the algorithm becomes the gatekeeper, or the relationship does—and class can predict who thrives under each regime.
Li’s speculative remarks about managerial interpretation of help-seeking are a useful frontier for future work. If supervisors begin to assume that LLM access makes asking questions “unnecessary,” help-seeking could be reframed from competence-signaling to inefficiency-signaling. That would subtly change who is rewarded, who is coached, and who is seen as “high potential,” potentially reshaping mentorship into a scarcer and more strategic resource. The organizational risk is a hollowing-out of apprenticeship: workers may solve problems faster but develop fewer developmental relationships, and those relationships are often where promotions, protection, and professional identity are built.
The policy takeaway is not “ban AI” or “embrace AI,” but govern AI as a social intervention. Training programs, practical use cases, and feedback loops can reduce the confidence and knowledge gap for lower-class workers in LLM-intensive settings. Conversely, standardized help-seeking processes, inclusive check-ins, and clearer channels can lower the perceived interaction costs of seeking human guidance. The broader point is almost annoyingly human: inequality does not vanish when a new tool arrives; it simply learns new costumes. The responsible move is to design workplaces where competence with tools and access to mentorship are not rationed by background.
Methods
The interview was conducted via typed questions—with explicit consent—for 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 if any 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.)
Journal & Article Details
Publisher: In-Sight Publishing
Publisher Founding: March 1, 2014
Web Domain: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com
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: 4
Section: A
Theme Type: Idea
Theme Premise: Mentorship and the Workplace
Theme Part: None.
Formal Sub-Theme: None.
Individual Publication Date: December 15, 2025
Issue Publication Date: January 1, 2026
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Word Count: 1,249
Image Credits: Photo by Levart_Photographer on Unsplash
ISSN (International Standard Serial Number): 2369-6885
Acknowledgements
The author acknowledges Meng Li for her time, expertise, and valuable contributions. Her 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.
Competing Interests
The author declares no competing interests.
License & Copyright
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012–Present.
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 How Social Class Shapes ChatGPT Adoption at Work: Meng Li on AI Help-Seeking, Mentorship, and Workplace Inequality (Scott Douglas Jacobsen, December 15, 2025).
American Medical Association (AMA 11th Edition)
Jacobsen SD. How Social Class Shapes ChatGPT Adoption at Work: Meng Li on AI Help-Seeking, Mentorship, and Workplace Inequality. In-Sight: Interviews. 2025;13(4). Published December 15, 2025. http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/social-class-chatgpt-adoption-at-work-meng-li-ai-help-seeking-mentorship-workplace-inequality
American Psychological Association (APA 7th Edition)
Jacobsen, S. D. (2025, December 15). How Social Class Shapes ChatGPT Adoption at Work: Meng Li on AI Help-Seeking, Mentorship, and Workplace Inequality. In-Sight: Interviews, 13(4). In-Sight Publishing. http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/social-class-chatgpt-adoption-at-work-meng-li-ai-help-seeking-mentorship-workplace-inequality
Brazilian National Standards (ABNT)
JACOBSEN, Scott Douglas. How Social Class Shapes ChatGPT Adoption at Work: Meng Li on AI Help-Seeking, Mentorship, and Workplace Inequality. In-Sight: Interviews, Fort Langley, v. 13, n. 4, 15 dez. 2025. Disponível em: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/social-class-chatgpt-adoption-at-work-meng-li-ai-help-seeking-mentorship-workplace-inequality
Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (17th Edition)
Jacobsen, Scott Douglas. 2025. “How Social Class Shapes ChatGPT Adoption at Work: Meng Li on AI Help-Seeking, Mentorship, and Workplace Inequality.” In-Sight: Interviews 13 (4). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/social-class-chatgpt-adoption-at-work-meng-li-ai-help-seeking-mentorship-workplace-inequality.
Chicago/Turabian, Notes & Bibliography (17th Edition)
Jacobsen, Scott Douglas. “How Social Class Shapes ChatGPT Adoption at Work: Meng Li on AI Help-Seeking, Mentorship, and Workplace Inequality.” In-Sight: Interviews 13, no. 4 (December 15, 2025). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/social-class-chatgpt-adoption-at-work-meng-li-ai-help-seeking-mentorship-workplace-inequality.
Harvard
Jacobsen, S.D. (2025) ‘How Social Class Shapes ChatGPT Adoption at Work: Meng Li on AI Help-Seeking, Mentorship, and Workplace Inequality’, In-Sight: Interviews, 13(4), 15 December. Available at: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/social-class-chatgpt-adoption-at-work-meng-li-ai-help-seeking-mentorship-workplace-inequality.
Harvard (Australian)
Jacobsen, SD 2025, ‘How Social Class Shapes ChatGPT Adoption at Work: Meng Li on AI Help-Seeking, Mentorship, and Workplace Inequality’, In-Sight: Interviews, vol. 13, no. 4, 15 December, viewed 15 December 2025, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/social-class-chatgpt-adoption-at-work-meng-li-ai-help-seeking-mentorship-workplace-inequality.
Modern Language Association (MLA, 9th Edition)
Jacobsen, Scott Douglas. “How Social Class Shapes ChatGPT Adoption at Work: Meng Li on AI Help-Seeking, Mentorship, and Workplace Inequality.” In-Sight: Interviews, vol. 13, no. 4, 2025, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/social-class-chatgpt-adoption-at-work-meng-li-ai-help-seeking-mentorship-workplace-inequality.
Vancouver/ICMJE
Jacobsen SD. How Social Class Shapes ChatGPT Adoption at Work: Meng Li on AI Help-Seeking, Mentorship, and Workplace Inequality [Internet]. 2025 Dec 15;13(4). Available from: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/social-class-chatgpt-adoption-at-work-meng-li-ai-help-seeking-mentorship-workplace-inequality
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.
Share this:
Dorothy Small
Clergy-Perpetrated Abuse Survivor Advocate
Choir Member, Saint James Catholic Church, Davis, California, United States
*Dorothy remains available for correspondence with victims of clergy-abuse.*
Correspondence: Dorothy Small (Email:angelsonedorothy@gmail.com)
Received: December 1, 2025
Accepted: December 14, 2025
Published: December 15, 2025
Abstract
Dorothy Small’s “When the Poison is Also the Medicine” is a first-person account of how clergy abuse can penetrate an existing, formative wound and yet, through a difficult and nonlinear process, become a catalyst for healing. Small describes the distinctive moral injury of spiritual betrayal: harm delivered through a figure or institution associated with trust, guidance, and protection. Rather than treating recovery as a simple arc from victimization to closure, the narrative emphasizes complexity—shame and silence, memory and embodiment, anger and grief, and the ongoing work of reclaiming agency. Small’s central paradox is not offered as a tidy lesson, but as a lived reality: the same spiritual language and community structures that were implicated in harm can also be re-encountered, reinterpreted, or replaced as resources for repair. The text foregrounds survivor autonomy, the necessity of credible witnessing, and the importance of trauma-informed support that does not demand forgiveness, minimization, or premature reconciliation. By situating personal experience within broader questions of power, accountability, and institutional responsibility, the piece functions both as testimony and as ethical argument: healing is possible, but it does not excuse harm, and it does not absolve systems that enable abuse.
Keywords: Clergy Abuse, Healing and Agency, Institutional Betrayal, Moral Injury, Post-Traumatic Growth, Power and Accountability, Religious Trauma, Shame and Silence, Survivor Testimony, Trauma-Informed Care.
Introduction
Clergy abuse is not only an interpersonal violation; it is also a distortion of moral and spiritual authority. When a trusted religious figure exploits their role, the harm often extends beyond the immediate act to the survivor’s sense of meaning, safety, and identity. For many survivors, the injury is compounded by institutional responses—denial, quiet transfers, pressure to remain silent, or appeals to forgiveness that function as social control rather than moral repair.
In “When the Poison is Also the Medicine,” Dorothy Small offers a personal narrative that refuses the two most common simplifications: that faith inevitably collapses after spiritual betrayal, or that healing requires a return to the institution that enabled harm. Instead, Small describes a more honest terrain, where injury and recovery can coexist, where anger can be clarifying rather than corrosive, and where “healing” is measured less by compliance and more by restored agency.
A central theme is the way clergy abuse can “penetrate” an earlier, deeper wound—intensifying existing vulnerabilities and reshaping the survivor’s inner landscape. Small’s account highlights the body’s memory, the persistence of shame, and the social forces that discourage disclosure. Yet it also traces the emergence of counterforces: naming the harm, seeking credible support, establishing boundaries, and building a life in which the survivor—not the institution—defines what wholeness means.
This article presents Small’s testimony as both individual and illustrative. It is a story about one person’s passage through betrayal and recovery, and it is also a lens on the ethical demands that survivor narratives place upon communities, professionals, and institutions that claim moral legitimacy.
Main Text (Article)
Author: Dorothy Small
Dorothy Small, a retired registered nurse, has been a vocal survivor advocate with SNAP. Having endured both childhood and adult clergy abuse, she began speaking out long before the #MeToo movement brought wider attention to such experiences. A cancer survivor and grandmother, she now writes about recovery, resilience, and personal freedom, amplifying survivor voices and pressing for institutional reform.
I am reading in the Bible. What I read caused me to research how a priest who is also human and a sinner can serve in persona Christi meaning in the person of Christ since Christ is without sin. Christ is the high priest of the New Testament thus replacing the role the temple and priests served in the Old Testament.
Priests, although imperfect humans, are acting on Christ’s behalf during the administration of the sacraments. Meaning they are instruments which Christ uses much like the apostles. The power isn’t from the priests but from Christ who works through them. Therefore, although their spiritual condition is best if it’s clean it’s not integral when performing the sacraments. Christ’s power works through the instrument that is the priest ordained. He isn’t a mediator but an instrument. During confession the priest serves in persona Christi. We can also go directly through Christ on our own who is the mediator between us and God.
This makes abuse by clergy even more destructive. Although it’s not their power we receive but Christ’s working through them, when they abuse and we see them in that role it can seem like Christ is being used to gain the trust of the prey. It’s the abuse and exploitation of God. We see priest as instruments of Christ’s light serving to connect us with God. Clergy abuse is perpetrated by the dark priest not sourced by God’s light but the other. In my case I was seeking healing through the church which is seen as a hospital and the priests as human instruments that serve as a vessel through which Christ touches us.
There is something “special” about them only in their roles. We can all be as Christ to one another. We all are priests. However, an unordained man cannot administer sacraments including consecrating the Eucharistic host. Only ordained priests can do that through the power of the Holy Spirit.
It’s easy to see how this can override the rational mind and cause us to dismiss red flags that tell us something is off. Add on top of that the indoctrination most of us receive as cradle worshippers. It makes it harder to resist their unique position with God. Especially if the priest brings God into the abuse which many survivors of clergy abuse have reported. The church is referred to as a field hospital. Christ came for the broken, lost, suffering and sinners. The church is also considered the temple which points us to God. It is also referred to the body of Christ. The Vatican is struggling with what constitutes adult vulnerability. There is no question of the vulnerability of children. However, in the hospital of sinners, the broken, lost, and suffering which pretty much describes most of the human condition who are the parishioners coming to Mass to meet Christ and receive His body through the Eucharist then anyone who comes to the
church for worship and healing are vulnerable to abuse of spiritual power and authority. The priest serves as the shepherd of the flock. The shepherd’s role is to guard and protect those entrusted in his care much like physicians and therapists are expected to protect those in their care. Priests serve as physicians of the soul and even as therapist. It is a dual role.
In my situation during the grooming phase the priest, whose dark penetrating eyes not matching his grin asked, “Do you think God is in this?” What a crazy thing for a priest to ask the prey! Of course, God isn’t in abuse of power. The church teaches sex is only in right order in marriage. Priests can’t marry as they are considered married to the church. To God. Therefore, any sexual expression by them is equivalent to cheating on God with the prey. It is the grave sin of fornication they preach about at the pulpit. The chosen victim of his lower ordered drive feels the shame of being in position to be an instrument of something violating God through His ordained instrument. Instead of helping us reach heaven they drag us to hell.
At least I know God was not the source of my abuse or any abuse perpetrated by clergy. This is not the case for many especially for those abused as children. The condition of the priest acting outside of his relationship with God is responsible. It is stemming from the lower primitive instincts. It is from the lower reptilian brain and not the higher rational brain. In the Bible the devil is referred to as a reptile that tempted Eve. The actions of a human predator go against what God is. God is the essence and spirit of light, love, truth, compassion, justice and proper order. Deception, lies, distortion, manipulation, lust, greed, control, evil and exploitation of the abuser oppose God.
Even though an adult I had a child’s mind with father and mother issues related to childhood serious traumatic events. The church is referred to as mother. The priest is called father. In reporting the priest, I suffered the same abuse as I did when I was five and a half and reported my grandfather, who sexually molested me shortly after my mother’s death and abandonment by my alcoholic father, to my grandmother. She slapped me forcefully across the face and swore at me. Not having anywhere else to stay I continued to live with my abuser for about a year until my grandmother decided to hand me over to an orphanage rather than leave my grandfather. My grandfather was protected from his victim. It was the same with the church. The priest is seen as needing protection from the one reporting. The church hates scandal. The one reporting is seen as the cause of the scandal instead of the one in power who caused the violation.
My church abuse deeply pierced my mother wound and father wound deeply repressed. I was in therapy with a psychologist specializing in treating trauma in childhood at the time I was heavily groomed by the priest. He knew that. I shared it with him. Instead of protecting me he used my vulnerability against me. He turned up the volume of grooming by expert manipulation including gaslighting and creating further self-doubt. Along with a professional therapist I turned to the church to help me heal my
relationship with myself through God in what should have been a safe place. Safety is crucial in healing trauma. The church was my only safe place left. Until it wasn’t.
After reporting the priest, I was banned from all ministry in my church by the pastor and hated by many parishioners who once provided love and community. It’s identical with what happened after the abuse by my grandfather. I continued to stay under their roof until it was too hard for my grandmother to live with seeing her husband and his victim
together. Although brought to an orphanage at the last minute an aunt and uncle opted to adopt me. It was another abusive environment. I lost an entire family before I even attended school. I remained in my church community for a couple of years after reporting the abuse until remaining there was exacerbating the trauma. Once again, I lost another family. Unresolved early trauma keeps being reenacted until it is successfully processed.
Although my priest abuser was sent back to his country the pastor who was also his friend continued to serve. He could not handle what happened. He had the problem. He could not tell me to leave that church. It’s public. I wasn’t disruptive. But he certainly could ban me from all ministry punishing me for creating the scandal by reporting it. It’s the only power he had over me and in the situation.
Silence is how the church prevents scandals. Exposure is like holy water to the devil. But the abuse itself was the scandal. God is in the transparency. Reporting it does not go against God who brings light into darkness. Exposing the sickness of abuse brings justice and healing not only for the abused but the church and the priests who maintains their vows which includes honoring boundaries.
Thus, when the priest asked me if I thought God was in this? Yes. He was. Not in what the priest did but in what I did. I reported it. That exposed not only the priest but me. Litigation opens you up to intensive scrutiny. You are exposed. After attempting self advocacy through the church for almost a year did not successfully resolve the situation I sought legal counsel. I learned it took power to address power. Money was the language the church understood when my words were not heard.
But guess what? I used it all as an instrument of healing. Abuse in the church was the domino effect. That domino sent all the others crashing down to the root of my early life which years of therapy could not penetrate. My defensive wall served as a fortress making therapy almost impossible and locking in the pain in an interior prison cell from which there was no escape. There was no way out but through all that rendered me vulnerable in the first place. The abuse in the church served as a winepress and I was the grapes in its clutches.
Carl Jung spoke of personal growth being achieved through confronting and integrating our own darkness of shadow. “Just as a tree needs roots in the earth to grow, a person must delve into their pain, fear and unconscious to achieve wholeness and reach their own potential. A tree can’t grow to heaven until its roots first reach into hell.
Shadow work is long and arduous work reaching into the hell of what is locked into the subconscious. It is a long and slow process.
Sometimes the poison becomes the cure. Today I am actually thankful for the abuse in the church. Because nothing else could break through the firewall constructed from my childhood keeping the truth from reaching me in a way that all I knew would have to die to accept that truth.
Then the new could grow on a healthier foundation restored on real love and truth instead of all I knew love to be which was love associated with abuse, lies and manipulation through grooming which felt like love. Narcissistic abuse has detrimental effects on the brain, mental health, quality of life and relationships. I had to come to the absolute end of my life as a new it. It felt like death. Over time through much work, persistence as well as learning and by providing safety for myself I developed a healthier loving relationship integrating what lie stuck in my subconscious wreaking havoc in my life rendering me a perfect target for predators. Individuation is crucial and possible even at an older age.
It has been an epic spiritual battle between light and darkness. God won.
After a five-year hiatus from church I returned almost two years ago to another parish where I am not banned from ministry. Once again, I am singing in the choir. I didn’t lose my faith. It just went inside deeper. It is stronger. I am stronger. I learned nothing and no one has the power to take the gift of faith from me. Nor will I again surrender my personal power to anyone regardless of their position.
Truly the poisonous experience of clergy abuse became the medicine. Chemotherapy is the poison that played a part in saving my life from double ovarian and fallopian tube cancers thirty years ago which most likely was also related to so much trauma lowering my immune system. It is through God’s power within me that gave me the strength to override the neglected and abused inner child in me who was the target to predators and narcissists fearful of further loss clinging to the illusion of love through grooming.
I finally was able to mature. It is never too late. It is well worth the effort. The amount of work I had to do is how I realized my value and learned what love is outside of abuse. I won’t need love and validation beyond myself which makes one vulnerable to predators.
Discussion
Small’s narrative underscores a crucial point that is often missed in public debate: clergy abuse is not merely a scandal; it is a human rights issue bound up with power, coercion, and psychological injury. The damage is intensified by the symbolism of spiritual authority, which can convert an assault into a crisis of meaning. In this sense, the harm is both personal and structural—an interpersonal violation reinforced by institutional dynamics that may discourage accountability.
The essay’s most challenging contribution is its insistence on complexity. “Poison” and “medicine” are not presented as equivalents, and the metaphor does not romanticize suffering. Rather, it describes a paradox survivors frequently report: that the very arena where harm occurred can become the site where truth is confronted, autonomy is rebuilt, and new forms of strength are forged—sometimes through reclaiming spiritual language, sometimes through leaving it behind, and often through redefining it on the survivor’s own terms.
Small’s account also clarifies what healing does and does not require. It does not require silence. It does not require forgiveness as a condition of social acceptance. It does not require reconciliation with an abuser or an enabling institution. The piece implicitly supports a trauma-informed framework in which credibility, consent, and boundaries are non-negotiable. It also points toward institutional obligations: transparent reporting mechanisms, independent investigations, survivor-centered policies, and a culture that treats disclosure as a call to action rather than a threat to reputation.
Ultimately, Small’s testimony functions as an ethical mirror. It asks readers to distinguish between performative remorse and genuine accountability, between spiritual rhetoric and moral repair. The clearest lesson is not abstract: survivors heal when they are believed, supported, and empowered to define their own recovery—while institutions are required to confront the conditions that allowed abuse to occur in the first place.
Methods
This article is a first-person narrative authored by the contributor and underwent light editorial review for clarity, grammar, and house style.
Data Availability
No datasets were generated or analyzed during the current article. The article text is the intellectual property of the author.
References
(No external academic sources were cited for this interview.)
Journal & Article Details
- Publisher: In-Sight Publishing
- Publisher Founding: March 1, 2014
- Web Domain: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com
- 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: 4
- Section: B
- Theme Type: Discipline
- Theme Premise: Theology
- Theme Part: None
- Formal Sub-Theme: None.
- Individual Publication Date: December 15, 2025
- Issue Publication Date: January 1, 2026
- Author(s): Dorothy Small
- Word Count: 2,107
- Image Credits: Dorothy Small
- ISSN (International Standard Serial Number): 2369-6885
Acknowledgements
The author acknowledges her spiritual director, Joan Stockbridge, Father Curtis, and Dr. Hermina Nedelescu.
Author Contributions
Dorothy Small produced and wrote this article as sole contributor with minor editorial notes by Scott Douglas Jacobsen and a reading by Father Curtis.
Competing Interests
The author declares no competing interests.
License & Copyright
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012–Present.
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 When the Poison is Also the Medicine: How My Experience with Clergy Abuse Penetrated My Deepest Wound and Became the Catalyst for Healing (Dorothy Small, December 15, 2025).
American Medical Association (AMA 11th Edition)
Small D. When the Poison is Also the Medicine: How My Experience with Clergy Abuse Penetrated My Deepest Wound and Became the Catalyst for Healing. December 15, 2025;13(4). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/when-the-poison-is-also-the-medicine
American Psychological Association (APA 7th Edition)
Small, D. (2025, December 15). When the poison is also the medicine: How my experience with clergy abuse penetrated my deepest wound and became the catalyst for healing. In-Sight: Interviews, 13(4). In-Sight Publishing. http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/when-the-poison-is-also-the-medicine
Brazilian National Standards (ABNT)
SMALL, D. When the Poison is Also the Medicine: How My Experience with Clergy Abuse Penetrated My Deepest Wound and Became the Catalyst for Healing. In-Sight: Interviews, Fort Langley, v. 13, n. 4, 15 dez. 2025. Disponível em: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/when-the-poison-is-also-the-medicine
Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (17th Edition)
Small, Dorothy. 2025. “When the Poison is Also the Medicine: How My Experience with Clergy Abuse Penetrated My Deepest Wound and Became the Catalyst for Healing.” In-Sight: Interviews 13 (4). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/when-the-poison-is-also-the-medicine.
Chicago/Turabian, Notes & Bibliography (17th Edition)
Small, Dorothy. “When the Poison is Also the Medicine: How My Experience with Clergy Abuse Penetrated My Deepest Wound and Became the Catalyst for Healing.” In-Sight: Interviews 13, no. 4 (December 15, 2025). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/when-the-poison-is-also-the-medicine.
Harvard
Small, D. (2025) ‘When the Poison is Also the Medicine: How My Experience with Clergy Abuse Penetrated My Deepest Wound and Became the Catalyst for Healing’, In-Sight: Interviews, 13(4), 15 December. Available at: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/when-the-poison-is-also-the-medicine.
Harvard (Australian)
Small, D 2025, ‘When the Poison is Also the Medicine: How My Experience with Clergy Abuse Penetrated My Deepest Wound and Became the Catalyst for Healing’, In-Sight: Interviews, vol. 13, no. 4, 15 December, viewed 15 December 2025, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/when-the-poison-is-also-the-medicine.
Modern Language Association (MLA, 9th Edition)
Small, Dorothy. “When the Poison is Also the Medicine: How My Experience with Clergy Abuse Penetrated My Deepest Wound and Became the Catalyst for Healing.” In-Sight: Interviews, vol. 13, no. 4, 2025, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/when-the-poison-is-also-the-medicine.
Vancouver/ICMJE
Small D. When the Poison is Also the Medicine: How My Experience with Clergy Abuse Penetrated My Deepest Wound and Became the Catalyst for Healing [Internet]. 2025 Dec 15;13(4). Available from: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/when-the-poison-is-also-the-medicine
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 (Article), 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.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/20
William Dempsey, LICSW, is a Boston-based clinical social worker and LGBTQ+ mental-health advocate. He founded Heads Held High Counselling, a virtual, gender-affirming group practice serving Massachusetts and Illinois, where he and his team support clients navigating anxiety, depression, trauma, ADHD, and gender dysphoria. Clinically, Dempsey integrates EMDR, CBT, IFS, and expressive modalities, with a focus on accessible, equity-minded care. Beyond the clinic, he serves on the board of Drag Story Hour, helping expand inclusive literacy programming and resisting censorship pressures. His public scholarship and media appearances foreground compassionate, evidence-based practice and the lived realities of queer communities across North America.
Worlds Behind Words with Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Dempsey opens with three flashpoints: Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy for minors, now before the Supreme Court; Canada’s updated advisory warning “X”-passport holders about possible U.S. entry issues; and the Court’s pending review of Idaho and West Virginia transgender sports bans. Dempsey, a clinician, explains why conversion therapy is harmful and primarily practiced outside licensed care, and outlines mental-health impacts on queer communities amid policy whiplash. The conversation closes with Wyoming’s $700,000 settlement with former library director Terri Lesley and a defence of inclusive literature as developmental ballast against polarization. He urges stronger civics education and safer, evidence-based services.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we’re here with the inaugural session of Worlds Behind Words. Let’s go back in terms of timeline from the most recent. The U.S. Supreme Court has been skeptical of Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy for minors. The case is framed around free speech grounds. The conservative justices appeared sympathetic toward the Christian licensed counsellor, Kaley Chiles.
Chiles challenged the law under the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment protections against government abridgment of free speech. The Court currently has a 6–3 conservative majority, so in terms of sympathy and composition, it likely leans in favour of Chiles. I don’t know if this has been concluded yet—this is as of October 7th, from Reuters.
Colorado’s law prohibits licensed mental health care providers from attempting to change a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity toward a predetermined outcome. Each violation can be punished by up to $5,000. That’s not large, but not insignificant either. The law also applies to attempts to reduce or eliminate same-sex attraction or to change, quote, “behaviours or gender expressions,” unquote.
This is where conversion therapy comes in. The American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association have both reiterated the broad consensus among experts that conversion therapy is pseudoscientific and baseless. It was practiced historically, but neither organization endorses it. In fact, it is harmful, not simply unsupported by evidence.
Any thoughts on conversion therapy generally?
William Dempsey: The main point, and I don’t have a statistic on this, though it’s easy to find one, is that most people who claim to be conversion therapists aren’t actually therapists. They’re not licensed clinicians. They’re usually people affiliated with a religious entity.
Without getting sidetracked, I have my own thoughts on the rise of “coaches.” While many are retired therapists, others aren’t regulated at all—no licensure, no oversight, no professional boards. These are just people allowed to work with anyone, often in mentally vulnerable spaces.
More importantly, the way conversion therapy is typically carried out has nothing to do with treatment. It involves behavioural conditioning—methods like inducing nausea or using electric shocks—which essentially traumatize people into suppressing their thoughts. So it’s not psychologically grounded at all—more Pavlovian than therapeutic.
Jacobsen: This one is a little more international, but I’ll make an exception for this series—though it’s meant to focus on America. Canada, my country, has issued travel advisories for the United States. The warning states that travellers with an “X” gender marker on their passports may not be allowed to enter the country.
The advisory explains: “While the Government of Canada issues passports with an X gender identifier, it cannot guarantee your entry or transit through other countries.”
U.S. Customs and Border Protection said in an email statement that a traveller’s gender, as indicated on their passport, and their personal beliefs about sexuality do not make them inadmissible to the United States.
Although former President Donald Trump issued an executive order in January recognizing only two biological sexes, including in government-issued identification documents, this order applies only internally within the United States and to American citizens. The Canadian advisory, then, was issued as a precaution but clarified that the policy would not render Canadian travellers inadmissible at the U.S. border.
What are your thoughts on this? And how does it affect people? That’s the more important question. It’s subtle, but essential.
Dempsey: It is essential. Part of what has interested me in this conversation is that while the government—specifically the president—is talking about recognizing only two sexes, the discussion around gender markers and the lack of clarity between “gender” and “sex” is still ongoing. The conservative movement often conflates the two, and that confusion shapes these policies.
But as you said, what matters most is how this affects people. Individuals in the queer community—especially those who are gender diverse—want to live authentically. Having a gender marker that reflects who they are might seem minor to some, just a letter on a document, but for others it represents a significant step toward being unapologetically themselves, toward social and governmental recognition.
Even though issues like safety and discrimination remain serious concerns, the ability to update one’s gender marker is a small but powerful form of validation—evidence that the government is at least attempting to support them. Taking that away would mark a step backward toward a time when queer and especially trans individuals were openly excluded from mainstream society and government recognition.
Jacobsen: Transgender sports participation. The Supreme Court will hear a bid by Idaho and West Virginia to enforce their state laws banning transgender athletes from competing on female sports teams in public schools. I don’t know the outcome of this one yet; it might still be pending.
This case has been taken up as another civil rights challenge concerning restrictions on transgender people. Idaho and West Virginia appealed lower court decisions that had sided with transgender students who sued. The plaintiffs argued that these laws discriminated based on sex and transgender status, violating the U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of equal protection, as well as Title IX, which prohibits sex-based discrimination in education. No date has been set yet for oral arguments. If no date had been set by late September, none will likely be set by the second week of October. Any thoughts?
Dempsey: This is a continuation of both sides of the argument feeling neglected. The difference, as I see it, is that the Fourteenth Amendment is very clear about the protections in place. Yet, most people arguing in favour of banning trans individuals from sports—often coming from a religious background—ignore the principle of separation of church and state.
When they say, “What about our protections?”—well, those are written differently in the Constitution. If you have an issue with that, take it up with your lawmakers. Propose an amendment. The point is, people are selectively choosing which parts of the Constitution they want to uphold. They’ll defend their Second Amendment rights fiercely but ignore the Fourteenth when it applies to gender, sexuality, diversity—or even race, depending on where we’re talking about.
There’s also a broader problem here: a lack of civics knowledge in this country. As general as that sounds, it’s true. We need deeper national conversations about civics, as many of the issues we discuss ultimately stem from it. If people had a better understanding of how government powers work—who makes decisions, what laws actually mean, and why some things are or aren’t constitutional—we’d be having a different conversation. But that’s probably a pipe dream.
Jacobsen: Two things come to mind. Republicans often argue that education should emphasize the basics—reading, writing, arithmetic—and they’re not wrong. I’ve seen the data. Canada’s not much better. The Canadian Encyclopedia estimated that about one in six Canadians is functionally illiterate. That’s around six to eight million people, averaging at 7 million.
In the U.S., the average reading level across all demographics is between sixth and eighth grade. So I agree with conservatives when they emphasize literacy, because reading and writing are your access points to society. If you can’t read prescription instructions properly, you could harm yourself.
On the other hand, progressives make an equally valid point: we need civics education and inclusive curricula—LGBTQ+ history, for example. It shouldn’t just be keyword censorship, where anything containing “gay” gets erased from history books. Both sides make valid points about education.
You’re pointing to something more profound, however. For students—whether in high school or post-secondary—who are caught in these national or state-level legal battles, their lives can be disrupted for months. If someone like that came into a social work setting and asked for help, what kinds of distress might they be experiencing?
Dempsey: It can vary widely—anything from depression and anxiety to personality disorders or even psychosis. If we’re focusing on the populations we usually serve, which tend to be within the queer community, historically, the everyday struggles were anxiety and depression. For trans people, that can also include gender dysphoria.
But now, things have escalated. Safety is a constant concern. The questions clients ask are often existential: Do I leave the country? Do I feel safe staying here? Will my rights be taken away?
And with the growing discussion around potentially overturning Obergefell v. Hodges—the Supreme Court decision that legalized same-sex marriage—those fears have only deepened.
Folks who fall under the sexuality-diverse umbrella, as opposed to solely gender-diverse, are also starting to have those conversations. I find that interesting because there’s a large portion of the queer community who are cisgender and say, “Well, we have our rights now—we’re good. We don’t need to worry about the rest.” And now, as many of us expected, those same people are starting to backtrack as attempts to roll back rights are surfacing again.
Jacobsen: When it comes to depression and anxiety, my understanding—as a non-clinician—is that they’re often closely linked. If someone has anxiety, they’re more prone to depression, and vice versa.
Dempsey: Yes, that’s correct. There’s often a genetic predisposition as well. That’s partly why we’re seeing increased rates over time, but it’s also due to greater openness and less stigma surrounding mental health. As each generation progresses, people discuss it more openly.
For members of the queer community, though, external factors—social stigma, discrimination, economic barriers—all play significant roles. Those external stressors lead to higher rates of depression and anxiety compared to their non-LBGTQ+ counterparts.
Jacobsen: The biggest one, which I didn’t expect to see resurface so strongly, was the conversion therapy case.
Dempsey: I was surprised, too, when I saw it heading to the Supreme Court. I think it reflects the Republican Party’s continued attempts to stir fear—especially in rural regions with less exposure to diversity. They’re strategically picking target populations. First, it was immigrants; now, with ICE deportations slowing down, it’s the trans and queer community becoming the next scapegoat to mobilize voters. That’s my take.
Jacobsen: All right, one more. A primer question for this next topic: how vital is literature—particularly what children and adolescents read—in shaping their self-understanding? Regardless of background, would you say that’s generally important?
Dempsey: Absolutely. Any form of media that includes representation is beneficial.
Based on research, I would assume that for a developing brain, exposure to diverse perspectives and differing opinions helps cultivate critical thinking—a skill society could use much more of, regardless of the setting.
In general, people on both sides of almost any issue tend to isolate themselves among those who think and act like them. This is driven by frustration over how divisive the country has become, but ironically, it makes the divide even deeper. For a developing brain, exposure to diversity—in any sense of the word—can be profoundly positive.
Jacobsen: That brings us to the final news item for today. In Campbell County, Wyoming, a local library director named Terry Leslie was fired in 2023 after several years of dispute over the presence of books with LGBTQ+ themes or sexual content, as critics described it, in the library’s youth and teen section.
Leslie alleged that her dismissal was retaliation for refusing to remove or censor books and that it violated her First Amendment rights. In 2025, the county reached a $700,000 settlement with her. She still has a separate suit pending against individuals who led the opposition to the books.
Do you think we’ll see more of these battles over book bans related to LGBTQ+ themes?
Dempsey: I do. I’ve been involved with Drag Story Hour for several years—I founded the Massachusetts chapter and now sit on the national board. I’ll emphasize that what I’m saying here reflects my own personal views, not those of the organization.
There’s been a noticeable increase in scrutiny toward queer-themed books and how children access them. We’re seeing a growing push to restrict the types of media children can access. Even in Texas, recent curriculum changes focus narrowly on “American history” while filtering what that means in practice.
We can also look abroad—other countries are curating information in similar ways, and unfortunately, some U.S. political figures admire those authoritarian models. So yes, I expect these restrictions to continue. I only hope the burden doesn’t fall on individual librarians and educators.
Book bans and challenges to queer literature will likely persist, and they’re tied to the ongoing demonization of anyone who opposes censorship. For instance, drag performers and librarians who read inclusive books to children are being labelled as “groomers”—rhetoric that echoes the 1950s and earlier homophobic tropes.
This cycle isn’t new. The target shifts—from gay men to drag queens to trans people—but the underlying fear-mongering remains the same. Statistically, much of the conservative base is concentrated in rural areas with less exposure to diversity, and some legislators exploit that lack of access and understanding to sow fear.
Book bans are a highly effective way to sustain that fear: “These people are dangerous; protect your children.” By controlling access to knowledge, they prevent adults from realizing that such rhetoric is false. Division serves their political purpose. Unity does not.
Jacobsen: We’ll wrap up there. Thank you very much for your time today, Will. I’ll talk to you next week at our regular time.
Dempsey: Thanks, Scott.
Jacobsen: Cheers.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/20
Freshta Hemmati is a leading Afghan journalist and human-rights advocate who directs the Advocacy for Afghan Women project. Now in its second year, the initiative builds the capacity of women journalists and rights defenders inside and outside Afghanistan. Hemmati and her team provide training in leadership, advocacy, and digital security, while documenting the realities Afghan women face under Taliban rule. She has coordinated quarterly reports based on first-hand accounts from journalists across provinces, highlighting censorship, threats, labour-market collapse, and mental-health crises. Her work underscores both the resilience of Afghan women journalists and the urgent need for international solidarity.
In this in-depth interview with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Freshta Hemmati discusses the findings of her latest report on Afghan women journalists living under Taliban rule. She outlines how censorship is near-total, with more than 90 percent of reporting compelled to fit Taliban narratives. Hemmati explains the threats journalists face, the restrictions imposed by the mahram system, critical shortages of equipment, and the collapse of institutional support. She stresses the severe mental-health toll, with journalists describing daily despair. Hemmati calls for urgent international solidarity, arguing that without sustained support and action, Afghanistan risks losing an entire generation of women journalists and its fragile press freedom.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Thank you for joining me today, Freshta. We have an extensive report covering restrictions, the threat landscape, labour-market collapse, digital security, and mental health—it is a wide range, so we are going to cover quite a bit. How often do you publish a report—annually or quarterly?
Freshta Hemmati: It depends on the projects we are running, but over the past two years, we have published every quarter, every three months.
Jacobsen: What prompted the first report that got the ball rolling?
Hemmati: First, a bit about the project that generated this research. It is called Advocacy for Afghan Women, now in its second year of implementation inside Afghanistan. The goal is to build the capacity of women journalists and human-rights defenders. Last year, we trained 100 Afghan journalists and human-rights defenders inside and outside the country. This year, we are training 80 women journalists. We maintain regular contact with them and run a series of capacity-building trainings on leadership and advocacy mechanisms. The data we are publishing comes from first-hand sources in Afghanistan—people in our network who are in weekly contact with us. We wanted to understand, with evidence, what the past four years have looked like for Afghan women in journalism. We have repeatedly seen talented women step back from the field they love. Restrictions have severe effects. Some leave journalism, change careers, or stop working due to family or security pressures. We felt there needed to be data and statistics documenting this reality. That is why we decided to publish the report.
Jacobsen: How did you recruit 101 respondents for a Google Form survey under those security constraints?
Hemmati: Through our active network. These are not passive contacts—we speak with them on a weekly basis. We track security conditions across provinces and the threats people face. If someone can only share through an insecure channel, we do not accept the data. Many journalists still use WhatsApp or Facebook Messenger, which are not secure. Because we also run a digital-safety program for Afghan women, we are careful: we collect information in ways that align with our security policies.
Jacobsen: Only 6.9 percent of women report being able to work openly and officially. Why isn’t that number zero?
Hemmati: That 6.9 percent (about 7 of 101 respondents) does not mean those respondents are entirely free to work. In our survey, they reported not receiving direct threats or orders from the current authorities—such as explicit bans on working as journalists, directives to censor specific topics, or instructions blocking publication. So they self-reported that they are working openly. Even so, 6.9 percent is very close to zero in practical terms. There are several possible explanations: some may genuinely not have been threatened; some may be reluctant to disclose threats. We have to write the report carefully and honestly, attributing findings to the survey rather than making broader claims.
Jacobsen: And 35.6 percent work with restrictions and 32.7 percent work secretly. Just one footnote there—how is “secretly” being defined? Is it under a pseudonym?
Hemmati: Absolutely. When we talk about working secretly under the Taliban, it is because so many media outlets have been shut down in Afghanistan. Some Afghan women journalists still refuse to accept these restrictions. They find ways to share information and realities about Afghanistan. That often happens through exiled media based outside Afghanistan, as well as international organizations that provide Afghan women journalists with tools to collect data or file stories for them. No one knows who is working for which outlet. They are in contact with organizations abroad. I appreciate those who collaborate carefully with these women, taking into account their digital security. In the past, many Afghan women journalists worked with international outlets without proper safety measures. Threats followed. WhatsApp accounts were hacked. Some were caught by the de facto regime because there were no clear safety policies in place. However, those who now follow digital-security protocols help keep Afghan women safe. So “secretly” refers to those working without their identities known, mainly because the Taliban actively gather information on journalists. They require IDs, addresses, and other personal details daily. Women in particular work secretly with exiled and international media outside Afghanistan.
Jacobsen: And 24.8 percent have stopped working altogether. Content control is near total. Over 90 percent of reporting is compelled. Journalists are intimidated, coerced, or pressured in some other way to alter their stories so they fit Taliban narratives about particular events. The survey showed that 68.3 percent said the control was “largely” and 23.8 percent said “minor.” Can you go into the kinds of responses that followed from that?
Hemmati: Absolutely. This problem affects the entire Afghan media community, not only women, male or female, it does not matter. Journalists’ words are censored. Editors now sit in newsrooms taking orders from the Taliban to remove or change wording about any event that contradicts Taliban policies, reveals weaknesses of the de facto government, or might be defined as a threat to their authority. Such content must be censored. Women face this censorship more frequently because being a woman journalist in Afghanistan is itself seen as a challenge to the regime. Afghan women are well aware of their rights, and the Taliban view them as a threat—but also, paradoxically, as a propaganda tool. If a woman journalist says, “Everything is fine, we can report freely,” the Taliban use that as credit for their governance. So women face this more, but censorship affects men and women alike.
I had one report from Bamiyan province where a journalist described the censorship as extreme. She said she would work from 8 a.m. until three or four in the afternoon, submit her report to the editor, and when she received the revised version, none of her original words remained. It was censored entirely and altered to the point she did not even recognize it as her own work. That is the reality of how this suppressive regime treats Afghan journalists, especially women.
Jacobsen: Threats are also another issue. Journalists get threats worldwide—that is not new. It is the degree that matters. In your survey, 55.4 percent reported personal threats and 15.8 percent reported outlet-level threats. What is the distinction between outlet-level threats and personal threats? The first seems more obvious, but “outlet” leaves some room for interpretation.
Hemmati: Many Afghan women journalists are directly told not to work as journalists—“go do something else.” The Taliban do not issue broad official bans for all women in a province at once. Instead, they target women personally, saying, “We know who you are, we know who you work for, and we know what kind of stories you produce.” They use heavy words to shame these women into giving up their profession. When it comes to threats against their work, they are often content-based. For example, if women journalists cover something sensitive for the Taliban government, they are told their words must be censored or they are forbidden from discussing those issues. We have had many reports of Afghan women journalists attending public Taliban conferences and asking questions such as, “What is your reason for the school ban on women?” They later receive direct threats—sometimes delivered to their editors—demanding that those journalists be warned not to ask such questions again. So there is a clear difference: personal threats are aimed directly at the journalist, while work-related threats are directed through media outlets.
Jacobsen: In a government run by men, many women report not being able to interview men. To get an official position or statement from the government—when it is male-dominated—Afghan women journalists cannot directly reach high-ranking officials. Is that the implication?
Hemmati: It is obvious. In a government run by men, Afghan women journalists do not see themselves represented, either in government or in the profession they are passionate about. It is a male-dominated system. This is why the international community must take concrete action—more than just issuing condemnation letters about human rights. A generation is being erased day by day in Afghanistan, especially with the threats Afghan women journalists face. Journalism is the process by which information is collected and shared; the media serve as the mouth and eyes of the people. If women are shut out of journalism, how will the world know what is happening in Afghanistan? Even with semi-active media outlets, the truth is not being reported. Journalists are too afraid to speak openly about critical issues. They secretly share information, which we then bring to the table in our reports. There must be concrete action to support the resilience and remarkable courage Afghan women journalists show today.
Jacobsen: Now, mahram—the male guardian system—is another instrument they have put in place. Is it also used to limit how Afghan women journalists can travel and do their work? A male guardian restricts women’s travel. For women journalists, can that requirement be weaponized to stop them from doing their work?
Hemmati: Of course. It is not only about Afghan women journalists, but since we are focusing on them, they are required to have a male chaperone—a mahram—to accompany them to do their work. For example, if a woman journalist travels from Kabul to Herat or Kunar to cover an earthquake, she must be accompanied by a male relative. However, what if she does not have a mahram—a brother, father, husband, or other male relative recognized under Sharia law? Should she be forced to give up her profession simply because she lacks a male guardian? This raises serious questions about how the Taliban create and implement these rules, particularly regarding women in the media. It is deeply concerning and should ring alarm bells across the global media community. The resilience Afghan women show inside the country is extraordinary, but it is not receiving enough international solidarity or support. If we want that resilience to continue growing, the world must stand by them, speak out about their struggles, and defend their right to work. The Taliban’s restrictions—whether requiring male chaperones or enforcing other absurd policies—are unacceptable in the 21st century.
Jacobsen: Some describe this as a retreat from the Age of Reason.
Hemmati: Absolutely.
Jacobsen: To be a journalist today, you need technology: cameras, phones with cameras, recorders, at least a phone with a recorder to capture voices. What critical equipment shortages or restrictions are Afghan journalists facing? The report notes that 44.6 percent face such limitations.
Hemmati: Because of financial constraints and reduced funding, Afghan media outlets lack even the most basic tools of journalism. Reporters often cannot afford a camera or a microphone to adequately cover events. Instead, many go out with only a simple phone to show resilience—that they are still alive, still working, and still reporting on critical issues from inside Afghanistan. These shortages worsened after U.S. funding cuts, which had a significant impact on Afghan media. As a result, journalists are not equipped with even the basic—not modern, just basic—tools required for their profession. However, despite this, I am proud of Afghan journalists. With all these restrictions, they continue to demonstrate resilience, insisting, “We are still here in Afghanistan, and we are still reporting.”
Jacobsen: International funding cuts are one issue, but your report also shows 29.7 percent of women have given up journalism entirely. There is a “support desert”: 80.2 percent reported no institutional support in the past 12 months, 85.1 percent reported no security or advocacy training since August 2021, and only 11.9 percent reported receiving mental health support—meaning 82.1 percent received none. These seem like an interconnected package. What are your reflections?
Hemmati: They are absolutely connected. Imagine having a job where you are not appropriately paid, while living with constant threats that at any moment the Taliban could ban you from your profession or your workplace. That daily fear inevitably impacts your mental health. You become stressed, depressed, and consumed with worry. From our experience working with women across different provinces, I can say that if not 100 percent, at least 90 percent of Afghan journalists are facing serious mental health challenges. They reach out to us individually, telling us they feel trapped in chaos and do not know where to turn for help.
This raises another alarm: how can accurate journalism be produced when journalists themselves are struggling so profoundly with mental health? That is why, through AMSOIL, we have integrated mental health programs into our projects for Afghan women journalists. We run psychosocial support sessions, and while confidentiality prevents us from sharing details, the stories we hear are horrifying. These sessions are helpful, but they are not enough. What is needed is a comprehensive mechanism and a strategic approach to equip Afghan journalists with coping tools within the country.
As you said, all these issues are interconnected. If one element—funding, training, security, or mental health—is neglected, the entire profession suffers. With women facing threats, safety concerns, and unaddressed psychological strain, Afghanistan risks losing an entire generation of women journalists.
Jacobsen: Afghanistan has now fallen to 178th on the RSF Press Freedom Index. There are other, less-publicized measures, but this is at least one recognized indicator. What does this portend? What does it say about the future of press freedom, at least in the foreseeable future?
Hemmati: It is heartbreaking. Afghanistan already struggled to build a free press during two decades of democracy. We were starting from scratch, and after years of sacrifice, we had finally reached some level of development for the media community. Then, in a matter of days, weeks, or months, all of that progress was wiped away by the Taliban’s suppressive regime. Afghanistan is sliding backward in every category, and this is devastating for the Afghan people, especially for the media.
When organizations such as Reporters Without Borders publish these findings, they should be understood as alarms for the entire international community. Afghanistan is in crisis. Just because there are no bombings or shootings on a given day does not mean people are not suffering a disaster. Many Afghans describe their daily existence as a “cold death”—they may not be physically killed, but they cannot breathe freely, live openly, or speak truthfully.
This reality connects directly to mental health. We hear from many journalists who wake up each morning wondering how to harm themselves or even end their lives. This is not rare—it is widespread. If the numbers appear lower, it is often because of stigma. Mental health problems remain taboo in Afghan society, so people hesitate to admit what they are going through. However, in reality, the level of suffering is exceptionally high.
Everything is interconnected: censorship, repression, lack of funding, loss of rights, and mental health crises. If the international community does not take concrete action now—after four years of Taliban rule with no sign of improvement—Afghanistan’s press freedom and journalists, especially women, face an even darker future.
The Taliban keep saying the situation will improve, but after their second takeover, we have not seen a single development. This shows they are not capable of governing. If concrete actions are not taken, Afghanistan will continue to fall further behind the rest of the world.
Jacobsen: Last question—what is the most ridiculous rationale they have given for restricting women journalists or the media?
Hemmati: There are so many. They make absurd statements like, “The situation will get better, we just need some time, we are new to government.” However, it has been four years. In a democracy, a president serves a five-year term, and they have already been in power nearly that long. They keep making commitments with no action, which makes their claims ironic at best and dishonest at worst. Their words are only promises on paper or verbal statements, never concrete steps.
In closing, I want to emphasize that Afghan women journalists are not asking for sympathy; they are asking for solidarity. They continue working under impossible restrictions while the Taliban repeat false promises—saying women can go to school, work, or participate in media—yet in reality they tighten control further. These contradictions are devastating for Afghan women in the media.
The resilience of Afghan women journalists is real, but it has limits. When they feel abandoned, without solidarity, they naturally grow exhausted from fighting for their rights. Without sustained international action, financial support, and safety mechanisms, their voices risk being silenced completely. Solidarity is not optional anymore—it is urgent. The time to act is now.
Jacobsen: Excellent. Thank you very much for your time today. I appreciate it.
Hemmati: Thank you. Thanks, Scott, for having me.
Jacobsen: You are welcome.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/19
Karel Bouley is a trailblazing LGBTQ broadcaster, entertainer, and activist. As half of the first openly gay duo in U.S. drive-time radio, he made history while shaping California law on LGBTQ wrongful death cases. Karel rose to prominence as the #1 talk show host on KFI AM 640 in Los Angeles and KGO AM 810 in San Francisco, later expanding to Free Speech TV and the Karel Cast podcast. His work spans journalism (HuffPost, The Advocate, Billboard), television (CNN, MSNBC), and the music industry. A voting member of NARAS, GALECA, and SAG-AFTRA, Karel now lives and creates in Las Vegas.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Bouley for This Gay Week covering October 3–10, 2025. They examine Jerry Greenfield’s resignation at Ben & Jerry’s, Supreme Court skepticism toward Colorado’s conversion therapy ban, and the influence of Project 2025 and evangelical politics. Bouley connects DEI rollbacks to the Pride Center of Vermont’s shutdown and notes rising self-censorship and relocation among LGBTQ people per MAP data. He critiques media rightward shifts, discusses Bari Weiss’s reported CBS role, and defends recognition of gender identity in UK and Italian policy debates. The conversation blends legal analysis, media criticism, and community stakes with urgency today.
Interview conducted October 10, 2025, in the morning Pacific Time.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Okay, once again, for this Gay Week, this is for the period October 3 to October 10. The sources today are The Advocate, Center Square, OutSmart Magazine, Reuters, and The Washington Post in that order.
This follows up from a prior piece we talked about — about Ben & Jerry’s. Ben is basically quitting. Ben Cohen said Jerry Greenfield made a difficult decision to, quote, after a Twitter post, “After 47 years, Jerry’s made the difficult decision to step down from the company we built together. I’m sharing his words as he resigns from Ben & Jerry’s. The legacy deserves to be true to our values, not silenced by @MagnumIceCream.”
Any thoughts on this resignation?
Karel Bouley: As we said before, what happens is your corporation becomes wildly successful, and you lose control of it. You suddenly have a board to deal with, along with the realities of the world. The world has changed. As idealistic as you may be, you have to adapt. He doesn’t want to. He wants to be an inclusive and kind ice cream brand where everyone is welcome. The board is leaning on inclusion because of the era in which we live.
When you’re running a company like that, you have to decide what is more important: are my morals more critical, or is this paycheck more important? He opted for his morals. I’m sure he’s already got a decent paycheck. He opted for his morals and said, “I’m leaving because I can’t be as free here as I want to, to progress the social causes that I want to progress.” That was his choice. I’m sure his partner was upset by that, but there’s not much you can do in that case. You ultimately have to make a decision.
He did not cite one specific reason. I’ve read every article about it, and he didn’t say it’s because of this — X, Y, Z — like, “I wanted the board to do this,” or “I wanted the board to do that, and they wouldn’t do it.” He has not cited one specific reason for his leaving. So one has to wonder. Why But we may never know.
Jacobsen: The court has been skeptical toward a Colorado LGBT conversion therapy ban. The American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association have issued statements referring to their position that it is an unscientific, baseless, and harmful practice under the banner of therapy. This one comes from a conservative majority in the Court.
Bouley: Yes. So, two things about this story are alarming. First, the fact that conversion therapy is back in front of the Supreme Court. Secondly, Clarence Thomas has made it clear that precedent does not matter. Clarence Thomas has basically said out loud what we were all afraid of — that it doesn’t matter what previous courts have ruled; they’re going to do things on their own.
The case stems from a Colorado woman, a therapist, who is suing not based on the validity of conversion therapy — whether it works or not. That’s not her lawsuit. Her lawsuit is that it violates her First Amendment speech protections because she cannot talk to her clients about conversion therapy. She’s saying, “Because I can’t speak to my clients about this, you’re imposing on my First Amendment rights.”
This case is not about the validity of conversion therapy or whether it works. However, the alarming thing is that the justices have made it clear they don’t want to believe any science that contradicts their social views. They believe in conversion therapy, or at least they believe in the right for people to practice it.
They don’t care that the American Psychiatric Association or medical associations have said this is a bad thing. They are doubting that science. That’s what’s dangerous — when you have the highest court in the land saying, “We don’t really believe all these psychiatrists or doctors.” That’s what’s dangerous.
The lawsuit is dangerous in two ways. First, it would allow torture again, which is what conversion therapy is. Second, it signals that the courts will only take scientific evidence as fact if it aligns with their worldview. Those are two terrifying things and two big reasons to watch what happens with this case.
If you are preaching something harmful in your practice — in your therapy — is that protected by the First Amendment? If a doctor tells you to inject yourself with bleach, even though it will kill you, is that his First Amendment right? That’s what this comes down to. We’ll see how they rule. It looks like they’re going to rule in favour of the therapist, which would effectively overturn all the state bans on conversion therapy.
Jacobsen: That’s from the proper article, Emil?
Bouley: Yes. This is from WCAX by Laura Ullman. The Pride Center of Vermont has paused operations and laid off some/most of its staff. This is reported as a “significant blow to Vermont’s LGBTQ community.” This is what Donald Trump’s war on DEI looks like. This is it.
This is the aftermath of that war. Vermont, like most gay pride centers or gay and lesbian centers, operates on tiny, shoestring budgets. Some of their staffers aren’t even paid. Their executive director is often also their board, and unpaid at that. When that money dries up, they operate on such slim margins that they literally can’t pay the bills — the light bill, the gas bill, the water bill — and meet salaries.
This is what that looks like. In a small state like Vermont, the impact is significant. Let’s say it’s California — in California, there are, I don’t know how many, but at least 30 gay centers: Los Angeles, Long Beach, San Francisco, San Jose, and smaller cities. You’ve got a lot of gay centers. In Vermont, you don’t have that many. And when the big one closes, that leaves an enormous gap in the community, in terms of trans outreach, LGBTQ outreach across all areas.
This is what those DEI funding cuts look like. Places close, communities go unserved. This is a direct result of Donald Trump’s actions.
Jacobsen: From The Advocate: 57% of LGBTQ+ people have made significant life changes since Donald Trump’s election. I’m unsure if the total number includes both that and minor changes, but that number jumps to 84% for transgender and nonbinary people. This is based on a new report from the Movement Advancement Project — MAP.
Bouley: What they mean by this is:
- A) People have become more closeted in their workplaces, not as open with the rainbow flag as they used to be.
- B) They’ve limited their social circles or even their family interactions.
- C) Many have thought about moving to a new state or a new country.
Trans people, in particular, show a higher proportion wanting to move to a different country than LGBTQ people overall. Gay men and lesbian women often think first about moving to a different state — getting out of red states and into blue ones where there are protections.
Anecdotally, I can say that number is probably higher, because there’s not one gay person in my life who hasn’t made significant life changes — including myself. I’ve been looking at other countries and blue states. I’ve talked to you about Canada; I’ve been looking there as well.
Basically, this is a very hostile time for LGBTQ people in America. Gay people are having to return to lives like we led in the 1980s — less open, less free, more self-reliant, not so reliant on government or gay centers or these types of groups. Fewer politicians are advocating for us, and we know we are in danger, so people are making life changes accordingly — moving out of state, to a different city, to a different country, or at least changing how openly we live.
That includes how we interact with people, how many people know we’re gay or lesbian, and even how we relate to family members. It’s an alarming number. It’s shocking. I think it’s only going to increase as Trump remains in office.
Jacobsen: Now, case in point, the Advocate under the title “Was Trump Always Against LGBTQ+ Rights?”
Bouley: Everything in his past says no.
Jacobsen: So I won’t lead into motives necessarily, in terms of the switch and so on. Why the doubling down?
Bouley: Donald Trump only cares about one thing, and that is winning and being accepted. He is the ultimate kid at school who will side with anybody he thinks is on the winning side, whether he believes it or not.
Now, I know of Donald Trump as an LGBTQ advocate prior to his entering politics. He had no issues with gay people or trans people. He never spoke against them. He did not support causes against them. And in many ways, he took actions that could actually be seen as favourable to the community.
Only when he entered politics on the Republican ticket — remember, Donald Trump was a registered Democrat — did he switch parties when he ran for president, by his own admission saying that Republicans were “stupid enough to vote for him.” That’s what he said, not me.
When he ran on the Republican ticket and saw that, to succeed, he had to be anti-gay, he suddenly morphed into being anti-gay. I still believe, at this moment, if it suddenly became fashionable and popular — if Republicans suddenly determined that they liked the gays and the trans community — he would change his opinion immediately. Because historically, he has not been against the community. He only sided against it when it became politically advantageous, proving that he is a man of no moral convictions.
Jacobsen: That leads to a follow-up question within that news item. Who are the individuals within his immediate circle in the Republican Party informing this more stringent switch between anti-LBGTQ and the prior stance?
Bouley: Well, it’s Project 2025. That’s the initiative he claimed to know nothing about — and yet he continually meets with the people who drafted it. It’s the leaders of Project 2025, and behind the scenes, people like Stephen Miller — or Voldemort, as I call him, because he looks like him. People like Stephen Miller and the extreme right of his party are who he’s now listening to.
That includes the authors of Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation, and figures like Charlie Kirk, who is very anti-gay. He believes he needs evangelicals to win, so he adopted the evangelical standpoint of zero tolerance for the LGBTQ community.
So it’s two-pronged: the authors of Project 2025 and what he perceives to be the evangelical community’s point of view.
Jacobsen: Now, another one — a smaller story that grew into something larger — was about Terri Lesley, director of the Campbell County Public Library.
Bouley: This is a good story. She is a winner.
Jacobsen: She won a $700,000 USD settlement after being fired for refusing to remove books containing content about sexual health and LGBTQ+ identity. That’s about protecting long-term health and knowledge — understanding yourself and others who are part of society.
Bouley: So under the settlement laws, this is a good story. From a legal standpoint, it’s essential. And by the way, while another portion of her lawsuit has been dismissed, she is still suing the people who ordered the books removed — that lawsuit is still pending.
But this isn’t really a win for gay people broadly. She won under employment law — meaning it was discriminatory to fire her for refusing to remove those books. So she’s won that part. The next phase of her lawsuit will determine if she can win against the individuals who actually implemented the bans.
That will be the more interesting case, because if she wins, it could set a precedent where those who enact bans might be held accountable — and that could lead to some bans being lifted. But ultimately, this is about her individual case. It’s not a victory for everyone fighting censorship across the country. It’s a win for her personally, because she fought her dismissal, and the court agreed — she was improperly terminated, and she won punitive damages.
If she wins the broader case against those who initially banned the books, that will be a bigger win for the LGBTQ community. Right now, it’s her victory. Hopefully, she can turn that into a win for everyone. We’ll see.
Jacobsen: This next one’s a little more complicated — and it’s more in your area, radio and media. You have some expertise there. So, journalist Bari Weiss is now the CBS News Editor-in-Chief. I don’t know the full timeline for her transition and takeover, but that’s the situation.
Bouley: She comes from The Free Press — her own outlet — and previously worked for The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal.
It’s odd because she’s out, she’s queer, and yet she’s staunchly anti- “woke.” She’s a troubling choice to be running CBS News. It’s a bad omen for the network because she’s positioned herself against progressive viewpoints and mainstream liberal perspectives.
As the leader of a news division, you’re supposed to take all sides into account and present them factually. But she doesn’t seem interested in balance — she’s aligned with the far right. Anything she doesn’t see as far right, she labels “woke.”
Personally, I don’t know her, but she seems a bit self-loathing, if you ask me. I should be celebrating that a queer person has been appointed to such a position of power, but unfortunately, not everyone in our community is the community’s friend. That’s a mistake many gay and lesbian people make — assuming that someone who’s queer automatically advocates for LGBTQ rights. That’s not true, and she’s proof of it.
When she says she’s “anti-woke,” that really means she’s anti-progressive, anti-liberal — which, in effect, means she’s not on the side of gay or trans people.
How will that play out at CBS? Well, look: Paramount has already capitulated to Donald Trump by firing Stephen Colbert to secure the merger deal with Skydance. Paramount and CBS are under Larry Ellison and his son, David Ellison — both strong Trump allies. So how does this bode for CBS News? Expect it to start slanting heavily to the right.
It is no longer the place of Edward R. Murrow or Walter Cronkite or anything like that. Look for CBS News to slant to the right, and do not expect favourable coverage of gay or lesbian content just because she’s out and open.
Jacobsen: UK court ruling — I’ve never heard of this before. So, in April, a UK court affirmed that under the Equality Act, the term “sex” in British English and law refers to biological sex. That means a transgender woman is legally considered male, and a transgender man is considered female.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) released interim guidance on the ruling’s implications, stating that transgender people could be barred from facilities and services — such as toilets, hospital wards, and refuges — that match the gender they live as.
Ray (33) told Reuters: “It’s almost like it’s being made legal to harass trans people.”
Bouley: But it is — that is not “almost.” That’s sugarcoating it. It is now effectively legal to harass trans people in both the United States and the United Kingdom.
And rulings like this continue to embolden the anti-trans movement. We’re talking about less than 1% of the population, yet there’s this obsessive fixation on them. Where will this end? Obviously, it will end up back in court, because what do we do with people in the middle — those who have already identified as nonbinary or listed their gender as “X” instead of male or female?
What happens to them now? Do they have to be reclassified as the gender they were born with? That creates enormous bureaucratic messes, administrative confusion, and legal ambiguity — and laws cannot be ambiguous.
They’ve made their decision, but it will be rechallenged. And when administrations change — whether in Britain or elsewhere — the laws could change again. They need to get their act together. We need a universal, global consensus on passports, ID, travel documents, bathrooms — all of it.
And of course, that consensus should recognize people as who they identify as. It’s that simple. Going back to purity tests about “what were you born as” doesn’t work. These anti-trans laws are trying to shove a square peg into a round hole, and it’s not working — that’s why it keeps ending up in court.
So where does this end? It doesn’t — not yet. There will be fights like this until Trump is out of power and until the anti-trans movement is finally defeated. Until then, trans people remain unsafe.
These laws and rulings make them unsafe — and worse, they create legal ambiguity. In that ambiguity, discrimination thrives. What’s needed are definitive answers — and the right ones, not these wrong, regressive rulings.
If you go through transitioning, the word itself means you are moving from one state to another. Once you arrive at that destination, that’s who you are. When you fly from New York to Ireland, you’re transatlantic — but once you land, you’re in Ireland.
But when you get to Ireland, you’re no longer trans — you’re in Ireland. It’s the same thing: when you transition from male to female, you’re no longer transitioning — you’re a female. You’ve reached your destination. We need laws that reflect this reality, rather than what current laws attempt to enforce.
Jacobsen: Last story today — Italy. Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni is looking to restrict the discussion of LGBTQ topics and sexuality in schools. A big theme — and a common one — is that these cultural battles are rarely creative. They tend to fall into familiar patterns about controlling what children learn in schools.
Bouley: Right. And speaking of that, I once mistakenly accepted a booking on GB News — I didn’t know what it was at the time. Now I know: it’s the ultra–right-wing network in Great Britain, widely discredited for its partisan slant.
I was on their evening show debating the firing of someone who had a rainbow flag on their desk about two years ago. The host kept saying, “I don’t have a problem with gay people, I just don’t want them coming up to my kids and teaching them this or that.”
Jacobsen: Was it an opinion or a news segment?
Bouley: It was a news segment — though, of course, he was rendering opinion, because that’s all they do. I told him, “You say you don’t want anyone telling you what your child can be taught — but you have no problem telling other parents what their children can learn.”
He and people like him are fine telling trans parents what they can or can’t do for their kids. They’re fine telling parents who want a well-rounded education that includes LGBTQ content that their children can’t have that.
How about extending the same grace you demand for your own family to other families? You don’t want anyone to tell you how to raise your kids — then don’t tell others how to raise theirs.
His response? “We need to go to a commercial break.” That was because I got him. I nailed him to the wall.
And that’s exactly what’s happening in Italy. The government wants to dictate what all schools can teach based on the preferences of a small group of conservative parents. But what about the other parents — those raising gay kids, trans kids, or simply teaching acceptance? Their voices matter too. Their children matter.
Instead of allowing one ideological faction to decide what’s “acceptable” for all, how about taking every family into account?
Italy has swung to the right before — Mussolini, much? — and it’s swinging right again. The pendulum will eventually even out, and these laws will be struck down in time. But right now, the far right is winning, and they’ll get books and curricula banned.
Look at Texas — they’re already pulling educational materials. It’s the same pattern that’s repeated throughout history: Nazi Germany, Mussolini’s Italy, Pinochet’s Chile, every authoritarian swing. It always “unswings,” but in the meantime, it’s tragic.
We’re silencing parents of gay kids, trans kids, and allies — making one narrow worldview the only one allowed in schools. That’s sad, whether it’s in Italy, the United States, or anywhere else.
Jacobsen: And that’s This Gay Week.
Bouley: That’s This Gay Week. Thank you so much, darling. I’ll see you next week.
Jacobsen: Excellent. Thank you so much. Take care.
Bouley: Bye-bye.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/19
Tauya Chinama is a Zimbabwean freethinker, educator, and advocate for human rights and cultural preservation. Trained in philosophy and theology, he transitioned from religious study to humanism, emphasizing intellectual honesty, dialogue, and heritage-based education. As a teacher of heritage studies, he works to integrate indigenous knowledge and languages into learning systems, arguing that language carries culture, history, and identity. Chinama is active in Zimbabwe’s humanist movement, contributing to interfaith dialogues, academic research, and public discourse on secularism, ethics, and education reform. He champions the preservation of Shona and Ndebele while critiquing systemic barriers that weaken local language education.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen interviews Tauya Chinama on evolving from apatheism toward “cosmopolitan humanism.” Chinama uses a phenomenological method—bracketing assumptions to understand beliefs from within—valuing theology’s role in meaning-making while maintaining humanist ethics. He favors dialogue over debate to build trust, yet sees debate as a useful secondary spur to critical thinking. Interfaith collaborations, including upcoming publications on jihad in Zimbabwe, deepen his literacy and credibility. Chinama accepts agnosticism about deities, prioritizing human relationships and responsibility. He argues humanism must practice moderation, humility, patience, and prudence: persuade, do not coerce; minimize harm; and speak with care, context, and timing and nuance.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: You think deeply about philosophical issues—epistemology, ontology, and inevitably theology. You’ve moved through positions such as agnosticism, atheism, and apatheism, which shows your willingness to reflect and change your mind. Many of the issues you revisit touch on theology in terms of definitions and meaning. Have you changed your mind again? If so, why? If you remain an apatheist, why does that position still resonate with you?
Tauya Chinama: I’ve made a bit of progress. I’m still grounded in apathy, but I now consider myself more of a cosmopolitan humanist. By that, I mean I understand the reasons behind each worldview. Having held various positions enables me to approach phenomena from both external and internal perspectives.
What I mean is this: in the phenomenological approach, I bracket out my prior assumptions about an idea. I then try to understand a phenomenon from the perspective of those who hold it. I’m less concerned with the factual authenticity of a belief and more with its impact on the individual. For example, what does it mean for someone to believe in Christianity, Judaism, or Islam? Belief systems serve as meaning-making structures, and I must treat them with care.
Of course, I have the privilege of viewing these systems from the outside, but I also try to step into the believer’s shoes when engaging in dialogue. I’ve observed that this approach is practical. At times, religious people feel I sound like one of them, and at other times, they sense I am not. The same goes for non-religious people. Why? My focus is on valuing humanity and understanding why people believe what they do and follow the paths they take.
Even humanists are often shaped by religion. Many of us are pushed toward humanism because of religion itself. It is rare to find a humanist with no interest in the study of religion. My own area of research is religion and human rights, and I expect to graduate with a program in this field, depending on the effort I put in between now and next April.
Jacobsen: Where do you see theology within this? Clearly, there’s value in understanding religious texts to grasp the history of ideas within world religions. It helps us know where others are coming from. But what about theology on its own terms? Do you see it as a worthwhile intellectual pursuit or as less relevant compared to contemporary philosophy and science?
Chinama: It’s worth studying because theology anchors the morals of many people. If we dismiss it, we risk creating chaos and irresponsibility. Some people cannot live without a guiding framework, and for them, theology serves as a master.
Freedom can be frightening. If people are told there is no punishment or reward for their deeds, some may feel free to act as badly as they wish. It takes a great deal of growth and responsibility to do good for its own sake.
Because I once trained to become a Catholic priest, I have many friends who are theologians. Some of them are very serious about theological discourse, and I partner with them on projects. For example, I recently collaborated with a Dominican Catholic priest from Zambia on a paper about the concept of jihad and how Muslims practice it in Zimbabwe. We are at an advanced stage and expect to publish it in a Zambian journal from the University of Zambia within the next month. We also have plans to publish with journals such as Philosophia.
Working with theologians gives me a deeper understanding. When I sit with them, we listen to each other. If they can entertain my ideas, why should I not take their ideas seriously as well? Theology provides the foundation for institutions like churches; without theology, their doctrines would lack a solid foundation. So it is worth discussing and debating. If you do not understand theology, you cannot convincingly address its contradictions or absurdities. You must understand it first to explain it, even to those who believe they know it better than you.
For me, theology is a discourse of meaning-making. It helps shape worldviews, cosmologies, and perspectives on reality. When combined with my humanist knowledge, it makes me a better person and, at times, an admirable figure in society, someone worth inviting to interfaith dialogue. What makes me happy is that recently I have been asked to share platforms not only by Muslims but also by Pentecostal and mission churches, especially the Catholic Church. The Zimbabwe Catholic Bishops’ Conference often sends a representative to these interfaith events. Their willingness to invite me shows that they recognize I can engage in genuine theological discourse.
Jacobsen: Do you enjoy a debate format more or a dialogue format more?
Chinama: I enjoy both, but I prefer dialogue. Dialogue gives me time to convince the person I’m engaging, and it gives them time as well. Often, dialogue occurs without an audience, which allows for a deeper understanding. Debates, on the other hand, usually require a larger audience, which can sometimes lead to misrepresentation or labels.
Dialogue, however, builds trust. When I engage someone in dialogue, even if they disagree with me, they can still explain my views reasonably to others in my absence. That makes dialogue a powerful tool. Debate is also essential because it can provoke people to think more critically, but I see it as secondary. First, we build the foundation with dialogue, and then—if the audience is balanced and respectful—we can move into moderated debate.
Jacobsen: What feedback have you received about debates and dialogues? How have these helped you improve your approach?
Chinama: Sometimes the feedback challenges me. It exposes loopholes in my arguments or in the way I engage. That forces me to keep learning and improving. Occasionally, I receive private messages, often on Facebook, from people who say they watched me debate or engage with someone and appreciated how I presented my ideas. They ask me to explain things further.
For example, during a dialogue organized by Muslims, some secondary school students were eager to hear about my worldview. They invited me to their Islamic school, Fatima Zahra, because they wanted to know why I identify as non-religious and what had led me to that perspective. I gave them a preface, and at one point I joked, saying, “I’m simply a product of my parents’ union.” They laughed, of course, because it’s a biological fact.
Then they asked, “Where did your parents come from?” I said, “From their parents.” They pushed further: “What about the first person?” I told them honestly, “We don’t know.” I emphasized the importance of honesty—if we don’t know, we shouldn’t assume. That approach convinced the students, and even their teachers appreciated the explanation. Experiences like that show me how patience and humility are essential for being understood.
Jacobsen: What has been the strongest argument you have heard from a theologian or a believer in God or gods? Was there ever a case where you found their reasoning compelling?
Chinama: Yes, there was a moment when someone told me: “The God of the Bible has many problems—He is limited and portrayed in human terms. But what if we think of God beyond the Bible?” I had to admit that this idea made sense. If you present a God that is not confined to any book, then I can at least follow the reasoning. The books often limit the grandeur of such a being.
As a humanist and a scientific thinker, I am not outright dismissing the possibility of a deity. There is insufficient evidence to support this claim. In specific contexts, I lean toward agnosticism, although I remain a humanist in my moral outlook. For me, morality does not depend on whether a god exists. Now in my thirties, I spend little time worrying about whether God exists or not. What matters more is how we relate to one another as human beings, because that is what truly enhances our lives.
Jacobsen: Are there areas where humanism could improve, either as a philosophy or in how it is practiced? For example, are there places where we lack enough evidence to establish firm humanist positions, or areas where those who espouse humanism fall short in practice?
Chinama: Moderation, humility, patience, and prudence should always guide humanists. If we neglect these, we risk falling into the same trap of power—wanting to force everyone to live by our standards. Instead, we should aim to convince, not coerce. Humanism can cause harm if it is not practiced with humility, patience, and prudence.
By prudence, I mean knowing what to say, and when and where to say it. Without that, you might create enmity or cause harm that cannot be undone. Some humanists claim, “It is not my responsibility to avoid harming others.” But if we take the spirit of humanism seriously, then it is our responsibility—not only to avoid harming others, but also to avoid harming ourselves. We should care for others and ensure their welfare, because that is part of what it means to live responsibly as a humanist.
Jacobsen: Which parts of Zimbabwe are the most humanistic?
Chinama: Usually, the urban areas. In cities, people have better access to information than in rural areas. The majority of humanists are in the capital, Harare. According to census estimates, we think there are about 10 percent non-religious people in Zimbabwe, which would actually mean they outnumber Catholics. Examining the WhatsApp groups for humanists, it is evident that most members are from Harare. Unfortunately, we don’t meet in person often, but it is high time we started holding humanist meetups. We should push for that as soon as possible.
Jacobsen: Do you think access to technology could help bridge the gap for rural areas—something as simple as a generator or a power line with chargers for phones and laptops, so that people could get online? If so, do you think widespread access to accurate information is still far off for rural Zimbabweans, or could it become a reality in the near future? That way, people would have a second perspective on humanist ideas alongside more traditional, Christian, or Muslim viewpoints—or supernatural ones in general.
Chinama: The problem with Zimbabwe is that it is still heavily a Christian country—around 80 percent of the population identifies as Christian. In rural areas, access to information is severely limited due to unreliable electricity and poor network coverage. Even when I visit my rural home, it feels like a sabbatical from the digital space. People there are cut off. The only access to broader information is at business centers, where you might find some connectivity.
So, in rural Zimbabwe, people are primarily exposed to one-sided information. I call it an epistemological dictatorship. By contrast, in urban areas, it is challenging to prevent people from accessing diverse perspectives, as social media platforms like TikTok, Facebook, and WhatsApp are widely available. In the deep rural areas, however, people live away from the digital world. That can be positive in some ways—sometimes it is good to step away from digital life—but it also keeps them isolated from alternative viewpoints.
Jacobsen: Do you see changes in how people practice religion as access to information grows? In North America, for example, once the internet became widespread, people encountered a wide range of views they had never heard before. That led to a wave of secularism, freethought, and humanism. Would something similar be happening in Zimbabwe as access to information improves?
Chinama: Yes, it is definitely happening in Zimbabwe, and demographics play a role. Most people who are becoming open to humanism are young people, particularly those in higher education. Exposure to a more diverse society broadens their minds. Of that estimated 10 percent of Zimbabweans who are non-religious, the majority are young and have attended universities or colleges.
It is rare to find older humanists in Zimbabwe. I am not aware of anyone who is over 60. Most of the people recognized locally as humanists are under 40, and nearly all of them have had some higher education.
Jacobsen: How are people being introduced to non-religious ideas in Zimbabwe today? Is it mainly through education, the internet, or peers—maybe even platforms like TikTok?
Chinama: There are many channels. Through the curriculum—particularly the heritage-based curriculum—students are now exposed not only to Christianity, but also to Judaism, Islam, and indigenous religions. If they have a teacher like me, they will also learn that there are non-religious people. I teach heritage studies, and I ensure that I include this perspective.
Additionally, people are introduced to humanistic ideas through radio programs, television appearances, podcasts, and online discussions. Still, there is much more to be done. Many Zimbabweans have never even heard the word “humanism,” mainly because they have never encountered it in school, the media, or in conversation.
If we accelerate our discussion of humanity, I am confident we will foster a more open society. Another challenge is that very few humanists engage in politics. Without political power, we cannot influence laws or institutions, such as the police. Similarly, very few humanists have economic power. Yet, with financial resources, one can also influence society.
So we need both political and economic power. How do we get there? By participating in business and politics. That way, we can influence laws, institutions, and public advocacy.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Tauya.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/18
Christopher Louis is a Los Angeles–based international dating and relationship coach and the founder of Dating Intelligence. As host of the Dating Intelligence Podcast, Louis draws on intuition and lived experience to guide clients toward authentic selves and meaningful romantic connections.
With Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Louis distinguishes first dates from ongoing relationships and emphasizes clear, timely communication when delays or cancellations occur. Louis models empathy by acknowledging uncontrollable factors—work, weather, emergencies—while urging partners to learn each other’s responsibilities and set realistic plans, such as regular coffee breaks or walks. He warns repeated cancellations erode trust, advising sincere apologies, swift follow-ups, and firm boundaries when excuses become patterns or dishonesty appears. Self-compassion matters too: own mistakes, make amends, and demonstrate reliability through follow-through. Consistently.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Let us start with the opening question. When it comes to people entering the dating space for the first time—or those who have had a long-term partner, separated, and are re-entering it—things may have changed. There is a paradox in contemporary Western dating culture: people are encouraged to take dating both seriously and casually. Scheduling issues can arise due to various factors, including weather, family events, work obligations, or emergencies. Maybe someone is a lawyer and has to take on a last-minute client. These things can get in the way. When organizing a date, various factors — both within and outside one’s control—can influence how the date unfolds. How should people handle those situations—with calm and grace—especially when distinguishing between what is controllable and what is not?
Christopher Louis: That is a thoughtful question. Let us start with people who have been dating for a while, rather than those going on a first date, as the parameters differ. For people in established relationships, logistical challenges—such as work, traffic, and weather—often arise. The best way to handle these situations is to communicate consistently and keep the other person informed about what is happening. Sometimes things are out of our control.
Maybe you are stuck at work unexpectedly, or, in my case, my partner is a doctor—her schedule can change with little notice, which I have experienced many times for legitimate reasons. You first need to understand who you are with—what they do for a living, and what responsibilities they have. Maybe they are divorced, have children, or have other commitments of similar importance. The two of you have to balance those priorities. I have been on dates where my partner said, “I am running late because of something at the hospital.”
I’ve even had her leave in the middle of a date when her phone rang and she said, “We have to go.” In those moments, I take it in stride because I know what her job entails. I’ve told her, “You don’t need to apologize for your work.” I entered this relationship knowing her career could be unpredictable. Once I made that commitment and said, “I understand what you do,” I accepted that there would be times she’d need to leave or be late. I’ve learned to be at peace with that and to remind her that her work matters. Outside of her profession, she’s attentive, and when we’re together, we’re connected. We set work aside when it’s time to focus on each other.
Now, regarding first dates, many people feel that if your date is late, it isn’t automatically a red flag, though it can be not very encouraging to the person waiting. Often, it’s something like traffic or an unexpected delay. The best approach is to check in. Let the person know, “I’m sorry, traffic is heavy, I didn’t expect this.” Keeping them informed shows consideration and engagement. When these things happen, communicate, apologize, and move forward. I’ll stop there and let you ask the next question.
Jacobsen: What about the other side—the person who isn’t assessing whether lateness is an orange, yellow, or red flag, but is instead the one causing it? Say they’re the doctor who had an emergency come up, and they had to cancel on very short notice. How should they inform the other person? How should they proceed with rescheduling? For instance, should they reschedule right away, or say, “I’ll text you later today or tomorrow”? Should it be managed with a proposed new time for rescheduling or similar adjustments?
Louis: In that case, as far as the person who’s doing the cancelling or running late, it really depends on where you are in the relationship. If it’s a first date and something comes up, there’s not much you can do in the moment—you’reprobably knee-deep in the situation that’s taken priority. The proper etiquette is to send a quick apology and say, “I’ll check in with you once this is resolved. Let’s see if we can reschedule when it works for both of us.” That’s my first-date logic, because the other person might not have time the next day or even later that week. It’s best to follow up as soon as you can by calling or texting to apologize and express a genuine interest in rescheduling. Say something like, “I’d love to reschedule—let’s look at our calendars.”
Now, if you’re already dating someone or in an ongoing relationship, the approach is a bit different. In that case, you should apologize sincerely and, if necessary, offer to make amends. Often, though, your partner will understand and say, “No big deal, these things happen.” You both acknowledge that life is unpredictable and agree to handle it as it comes.
Sometimes, though, people do get upset about this—especially if it becomes a pattern. If one partner frequently cancels or runs late, it can become a point of contention. The other person might start to feel neglected or think, “You don’t care about me,” or “You’re always cancelling.” These are real emotional responses that arise, and they need to be acknowledged and discussed.
Jacobsen: What should someone keep in mind when planning a first date in terms of logistics, so they can minimize the impact if something like this happens? For example, would it make sense to plan something lighter, not a full three-course dinner at a fancy restaurant, but something that requires less time and energy, so that if a cancellation happens, it’s not as jarring? Would that be a reasonable consideration?
Louis: Yes, I think so. This is why, on a first date, most people should keep it casual. You don’t want to set expectations too high on either side. Keeping the time commitment modest is fair to both people. Both should agree on the realistic time they have.
Nowadays, with dating apps and fast-paced schedules, people value their time and don’t want to waste it. That’s why coffee dates or short meetups work so well. A simple coffee or a walk can be a great first date—it gives you time to get to know each other without too much pressure. Both people are accountable for the time they’ve set aside.
I’ve had clients who only had an hour for a first date, and they told the other person that upfront. The other person was okay with it, and it went well. If both sides are honest and communicate their time constraints, it sets healthy expectations.
Here’s the bonus: if the date is going well and you both have more time, you can extend it—maybe take a walk after coffee or keep talking somewhere else. Keeping it light gives you flexibility and room to build connections naturally.
Jacobsen: A bit more on that, people in the United States and Canada both deal with this—but there’s a significant cultural element around horoscopes, crystal balls, and psychic readings. People try to interpret their life patterns through the stars and planets. It’s become quite a thing. So if someone experiences two cancellations like this—from the same person or even different people—I can easily imagine them thinking, “Am I getting my karmic justice? What did I do wrong?” Perhaps a more grounded perspective is that sometimes these things happen, and it’s not necessarily about you. That’s also a word of encouragement.
Louis: Yes, right. Just as in business, unexpected issues can arise. You might have a meeting or a first-time client and need to cancel, sometimes even back-to-back, which never looks great. Hopefully, the person doing the cancelling understands that—it’s certainly how I’d feel. If I had to cancel twice, I’d feel awful. I’d also want to reassure them: “I know this has happened twice, but I promise we’ll make it happen.” Ideally, the other person recognizes your sincerity, understands your situation, and is forgiving enough to give you another chance. Once you do follow through, they’ll see that you genuinely care about spending time with them.
But if the person cancelling seems aloof—if they’re not really communicating, giving vague excuses, or showing little energy—that tells you something different. You can usually feel the difference between “something real came up” and “they just don’t care.” Hopefully, most people can sense that intuitively. Still, the person doing the cancelling should provide enough context and emotional honesty to show they genuinely feel bad about it. That makes all the difference.
Jacobsen: And then there’s the most complex case—the person lied. You find out through some means, maybe a mutual friend, that nothing actually came up. They didn’t want to tell you directly, “No.” How should someone respond in that situation—respectfully but firmly—so they set boundaries, maintain self-respect, and preserve mutual dignity while cutting that person off?
Louis: Let’s take that extreme example. Say you’re supposed to meet someone, you show up, and there’s no contact at all—no text, no call, no “I’m running late.” That’s as bad as lying or inventing an excuse and disappearing. It’s plain disrespect. If you don’t have the courage or courtesy to tell someone, “I’m sorry, but I don’t think this will work,” or “I’ve got cold feet,” that’s a lack of integrity.
It’s always better to be upfront. Just say the truth. The person on the receiving end should set a clear boundary: “I don’t appreciate being treated this way, and I’m not giving this person another chance.” There’s really no excuse for that behaviour. Even the “I forgot my phone” excuse doesn’t hold up. If that truly happened, the respectful thing to do would be to show up anyway, apologize in person, or contact the venue—call the restaurant, the bar, or the coffee shop—to let them know you’re late. You know where the meeting is, so there’s always a way to communicate. That’s the difference between being responsible and being careless.
Please let that person at the venue know what’s going on.
Jacobsen: I suppose the final point here would be about resilience—if this kind of thing happens, should people remember that there are billions of adults on the planet? There are always more fish in the sea. Is that a healthy way to look at it?
Louis: That’s a very healthy way of looking at it. And I hope no one is so insecure or lacking in self-worth that they tolerate being treated like that more than once. You must set your boundaries. If someone does this to you and you still decide to give them another chance—a sort of pardon, like a judge granting leniency—then you’d better establish clear boundaries next time. As the saying goes: fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.
Jacobsen: That’s right—not in the George W. Bush way, but in the real sense of the phrase. As a footnote, that same principle should apply to ourselves. We all make mistakes, but it’s essential to give ourselves grace while also committing to doing better.
Louis: You have to be accountable for your actions. If you’re not, that’s where narcissism or egocentrism creeps in. There have been a few times in my own work where I’ve forgotten a client appointment, and I’ve felt awful about it. I always take responsibility, apologize, and ask for another chance to make it right. And when I do, I follow through completely—often going above and beyond to show that it was a one-time mistake. I make it clear that’s not whoI am, and I make sure it doesn’t happen again.
Jacobsen: Chris. Thank you very much for your time today.
Louis: I appreciate you, Scott. Thank you for your time and for coming back to do this again.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/18
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 numerous feature films, web series, and music videos. JD 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, JD also led the spiritual-based film KATERI, which won the prestigious “Capex Dei” award at the Vatican in Rome. JD 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 JD’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.
In this interview with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Mata reflects on Tejano as a “cultural passport,” a third culture blending Mexican and American traditions, spread through migrant workers, and defined by its synth-driven sound and lyrical vulnerability.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Once again, we are here with the musically polymathic JD Mata. Mr. Mata, this is number 10. I cannot believe we have made it this far. The focus today is identity and belonging—Tejano art and lyrics as an in-between space between Mexican heritage and American life. Do you see the songs as cultural passports?
J.D. Mata: I see the songs in Tejano music as cultural relevance—yes, passports, but I would say passports into relevance, into the soul and into the spirit. When we were playing Tejano music, you had to understand the setting: South Texas, especially the Texas–Mexico border region. Many people trace the roots of Tejano and its sister style, conjunto, to the borderlands of South Texas—San Antonio and the Rio Grande Valley both play a significant role in the story—with early pioneers like accordionist Narciso Martínez, known as El Huracán del Valle, and Valerio Longoria shaping the sound. Labels such as Ideal Records, based in Alice and San Benito, recorded crucial artists and helped standardize the style.
So when I say “cultural passport,” I mean a passport into our own soul and spirit. The Rio Grande Valley sits right on the border; McAllen is only about 10 or 11 miles’ drive to the crossing at Reynosa. You feel like you are in Mexico, yet you are also entirely in the United States, with the nearest big cities—San Antonio or Austin—just hours away. Growing up pre-internet, that distance made the Valley feel like its own little country, with its own culture.
In terms of identity and acceptance—and in the lyrics—Tejano was an affirmation and a reflection of our uniqueness, a blend of borderlands soul that became Tejano. Later, artists like Selena helped carry that passport worldwide, making the idiom legible far beyond Texas while keeping its community roots.
People use different honorifics for the music’s elders—some call Manuel “Cowboy” Donley a “godfather of Tejano,” for example—but the lineage is broad, with many architects along the border who built the sound over decades. My point is that the passport works because many towns, many players, and many stages stamp it.
I may have gone off on a tangent, but it still fits the ballpark. For example, I wrote a song back in the 1980s called That Means I No Longer Will Cry. I was going through a breakup—a girl had left me. Through my music, through the vehicle of Tejano artistry, I was able to write about it. I put those feelings into the lyric.
It was on the radio, actually—KIWW at the time, the number one Tejano station in South Texas. And it was basically myexperience going through this breakup. She left me, and I had had enough, and I wasn’t going to cry anymore. In a way, that lyric, as simple as it sounds, reflects something more profound. It’s a little bit of an oxymoron: you have the machismo that says “don’t cry,” but in private, you do cry. We Mexican Americans—Tejanos—are very emotional and vulnerable, but we keep it private. Through song, through lyrics, it became a vehicle for me to show that side.
I found it poignant in the sense that yes, it’s a basic lyric—”I’m not going to cry anymore. You left me. I’m not going to cry for you anymore. I’m going to live my own life.” But the subtext is vulnerability. I cry, yes. I’m this strong Mexican American man, but I’m telling the world that I am crying, even as I’m declaring I’ll no longer cry for you.
Crying itself could also be a metaphor. It depends on how you read the song. Again, that’s a case in point of how the words are a reflection, a manifestation, a passport into our culture, into our spirits, into our souls.
Jacobsen: Is this cultural passport just a passage from one to the other, or is it something like a third culture?
Mata: That’s a fascinating question. In a way, yes. Because you have the Mexican, you have the American—two cultures. The synergy of the two creates something more. Then you have the third culture: Tejano.
There are, in fact, three distinct cultures: Mexican culture, American culture, and Tejano culture. In some ways, we’re like an independent nation. So yes, there are three cultures. Tejano is not a dichotomy but a triad. Is there such a thing as a trichotomy? Well, yes—you change the prefix from “di-” to “tri” and you have a trichotomy. A dichotomy is a binary split. A trichotomy is a three-way split: Mexican heritage, American heritage, and then Tejano, which is both and neither at the same time.
Jacobsen: Maybe it’s a dichotomy, but “trinary” in the sense that two are clearly distinct—American and Mexican—and then there’s a third category that is a blend, not necessarily opposed to either.
Mata: That’s a great way of putting it.
Jacobsen: What about the migrant workers’ journey, in the fields, in self-taxis, and a sense of dignity in work? We’ve discussed work ethic a bit, but how does it manifest more in this third culture aspect?
Mata: I can try to speak to it as an observer, but I was never a migrant myself. I had a lot of friends—many of my cousins were migrant workers. That’s a fascinating topic…
Jacobsen: How does this relate to Tejano music?
Mata: They’re definitely related. Point one is that migrant workers were travelling and working all over the United States, and Tejano artists would tour in the very same places where those workers were. Bands would go to Washington, to Idaho—wherever migrant workers had settled temporarily—and perform for those communities. It became an opportunity for Tejano artists to travel and play gigs across the country.
That’s something we don’t hear much about: the commerce aspect, the supply and demand. Without migrant workers, would Tejano music have reached the popularity it did? It’s like pollination. Tejano artists followed the migrant workers, and the music cross-pollinated throughout the United States, spilling into other cultures wherever they went. The musicians were like bees, carrying and spreading cultural pollen.
So, when we were discussing earlier how lyrics serve as a cultural passport, this is what it means in practice. The passport allowed Tejano culture to pollinate the U.S. via the migrant worker. And in terms of work ethic—my God, what a work ethic. Data from labour studies show that, on average, Mexican nationals consistently rank among the hardest-working populations in the world in terms of hours worked per year.
César Chávez is central here. He strongly advocated for American farmworkers, especially migrants, through organizations such as the United Farm Workers (UFW). The Bracero Program had earlier brought Mexican nationals into U.S. fields on temporary contracts from the 1940s through the 1960s. But Chávez emphasized protecting legal American migrant workers, even opposing undocumented immigration at times, because he feared it undermined those workers’ bargaining power.
As an artist, I try to stay out of politics. However, it’s worth noting that by securing jobs for American farm workers, Chávez indirectly created the conditions that allowed Tejano musicians to continue touring those same areas. That’s where the “Tejano bee” kept pollinating—carrying lyrics and music across the U.S.
Selena later had a massive global impact, of course. However, even before her, Tejano artists had already been shaping culture in ways that manifested more quietly. The reach of those tours and those communities is still hard to measure today, but Tejano culture, its lyrics, and its music undoubtedly left deep imprints across the United States.
Mata: Probably so, in ways we can’t even measure. But it has to have, just like a bee pollinates flowers. It’s a beautiful thing.
Jacobsen: Do you see yourself as a honeybee, too, Tejano?
Mata: Yes, for sure. Well, okay—yes, I do now. As I’m here in Los Angeles, and my music is informed by my pioneering role in the Tejano industry, I’m one of its founders. I’d consider myself one of the King Bees—or maybe a Prince Bee—because I travelled through Los Angeles. But there’s only one queen. There is only one Queen: Selena. No kings, but plenty of princes.
Jacobsen: That’s true. You’ll be a prince then.
Mata: Well said, Scott, thank you. Sorry, Selena. No—I mean, she’s the queen and the only one. The Queen of Tejano, 100 percent. But there’s also the queen of Chicano music, and that would be Laura Canales. When Laura Canales started—ironically, she was neighbours with Oscar Solis, whom I consider the godfather of Tejano music—he encouraged her to become a singer. If you look her up, you’ll see she was considered the Queen of La Onda Chicana. That wasn’t yet “Tejano” as a named genre.
For Tejano proper, that crown belongs to Selena. Tejano music, as a genre, really took shape later. The accordion and horns heavily influenced Chicano music. However, as I argue, Tejano is defined differently: a genuine Tejano band is built on synthesizers, guitar, bass, drums, and vocals. If you have an accordion, a bajo sexto (a type of 12-string guitar), bass, and drums, you’re not Tejano—you’re conjunto. Many artists today claim to be Tejano, but if they don’t incorporate the synthesizer as a core element, they’re essentially conjunto.
I’ll give some leeway: if you’re primarily synth-driven but bring in an accordion or horns for spice, fine—that’s Tejano enough. But a bona fide, full-blooded Tejano band is synthesizer-based. The synth provides horns, strings, and all those textures. Selena was 100 percent pure Tejano in that sense.
I know I’ve gone off on a tangent, but I want this on the record. What I’m saying is genuine, bona fide, raw truth about Tejano music. For academics who study Tejano, or professors teaching about its origins, this is relevant information—the etiology, the roots, the facts of Tejano music.
Jacobsen: Well, you’re the artist, but I’m the editor. Still, I think no one really knows what they’re doing, and everyone pretends. The only honest fake is someone who admits they’re pretending. We didn’t evolve to play piano—it’s just something humans learned to do. Artifice with sound.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/17
Mark Temnycky is a Ukrainian-American analyst and freelance journalist specializing in American, European, and Eurasian affairs. He serves as a Nonresident Fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center (since December 2021), and he is a geopolitics contributor at Forbes. Previously, he spent nearly seven years as a U.S. defense contractor supporting the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition & Sustainment. His work appears across leading outlets and think tanks, with a curated portfolio of articles and media available online.
In this interview with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Temnycky outlines Russia’s intensified strikes on Ukrainian infrastructure, Ukraine’s drone campaigns against Russian energy assets, and rising global oil prices. He highlights U.S. intelligence support for Ukraine’s precision targeting, the nuclear risks from Russian assaults, and the Kremlin’s strategic failures despite high costs in casualties and materiel.
Interview conducted October 6, 2025, in the afternoon Pacific Time.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Based on Reuters, did Russia’s Oct. 5 barrage kill at least five people and prompt Poland to scramble jets?
Mark Temnycky:
Jacobsen: On Oct. 3, did Russia launch its largest attack on Ukraine’s gas production, damaging Naftogaz sites?
Temnycky: On October 3, Russia launched an assault on Ukraine. The attack involved 35 missiles and 60 drones. The strike resulted in critical damage to several energy sites, leading to significant power outages in Ukraine. This affected thousands of Naftogz customers. The events that occurred on October 3 are a pattern in which Russia has previously targeted energy infrastructure in Ukraine.
Jacobsen: Did the U.S. around Oct. 1 provide Ukraine with intelligence on long-range energy targets?
Temnycky: Around October 1, the United States began providing Ukraine with intelligence to support long-range missile strikes on Russia’s critical energy infrastructure. This U.S. intelligence sharing will significantly enhance Ukraine’s ability to target Russian refineries, pipelines, and power plants, which help Russia sustain its war effort. As Ukraine continues to target these critical areas, this will put additional pressure on Russia to try to force it to end its ongoing invasion.
Jacobsen: Between September 28 and 29, did Russia carry out one of the most sustained drone/missile attacks of the war on Kyiv?
Temnycky: The drones and missile strike which occurred in late September 2025 was one of the most sustained attacks since the full-scale invasion began in February 2022. The assault lasted over 12 hours, and involved nearly 600 drones and more than 40 missiles. The Russian attack targeted civilian residential areas as well as parts of Ukraine’s critical infrastructure. At least four people were killed in the attack, and at least 70 Ukrainian civilians were injured.
Jacobsen: On October 1, did Zelenskyy warn that Russia is creating the risk of nuclear incidents?
Temnycky: Following the Russian assault on Ukraine in late September 2025, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy stated that Russia was deliberately creating the risk of a nuclear incident by targeting Ukraine’s nuclear infrastructure. In this case, Russia conducted a drone strike that cut power to the decommissioned Chernobyl nuclear power plant for several hours. This affected critical safety systems in Ukraine. Aside from this incident, the Russians have also shelled the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant throughout the ongoing invasion, where the International Atomic Energy Agency has condemned Russia’s attacks on the ZNPP on several occasions. Ukrainian special forces have also reported that the Russians have mined areas around the ZNPP, making the situation even more dangerous.
Jacobsen: On September 26, did Zelenskyy and Syrskyi say Russia’s 2025 offensives failed to meet strategic goals?
Temnycky: Prior to the summer of 2025, several international media outlets warned that Russia was preparing for a major assault throughout Ukraine. What transpired, however, was anything but a major offensive. Over several months in 2025, the Russians would sustain hundreds of thousands of casualties. Several pieces of Russian military hardware and equipment were damaged and destroyed, and the Russians failed to capture significant territory in northern and eastern Ukraine. Despite gaining little territory in 2025, and sustaining substantial losses, Russia has continued its ongoing invasion of Ukraine.
Jacobsen: Did oil prices rise on September 26 as Ukraine’s drone strikes curbed Russian fuel exports?
Temnycky: Following Ukraine’s drone strike on Russia’s energy infrastructure, oil prices notably rose. The Russian Federation responded by extending bans on gasoline and partially on diesel exports to keep more fuel domestic amid refinery outages. Ukrainian strikes have also reduced Russia’s refining capacity by targeting key oil infrastructure, tightening global fuel markets and pressuring Moscow’s war effort. These events have also led to a price increase in international fuel supplies.
Jacobsen: What military-political strategy can be inferred from assessing these patterns on the Ukrainian side and the Kremlin side?
Temnycky: Ukraine’s strategy focuses on asymmetric warfare and continuous disruption by using drones and precision strikes. Meanwhile, Russia’s approach relies on sustained attritional attacks, drone swarms, and missile strikes on Ukrainian residential areas and critical infrastructure. The Russian Federation is doing this as it tries to break Ukrainian morale. In other words, Ukraine is using drones and missiles to target Russia’s energy infrastructure, which is used to power Russian airplanes, tanks, and other military equipment. Meanwhile, Russia is launching drones and missiles on Ukrainian residential areas, such as hospitals, schools, cultural centers, apartment complexes, and shopping malls. This suggests that both countries are operating differently during the war.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Mark.
Temnycky: Happy to help, Scott.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/17
Dr. Dan Wilson is a molecular biologist and science communicator known for the YouTube channel Debunk the Funk with Dr. Wilson. He explains vaccine science, COVID-19 controversies, and other disputed health claims in clear language, aiming to raise scientific literacy and reduce misinformation. Wilson earned a B.S. in Biotechnology and Molecular Biology from Clarion University and a Ph.D. in Biological Sciences from Carnegie Mellon University, where he researched ribosome biogenesis. In the industry, he has worked on gene therapies, including adenovirus and AAV platforms. He appears on programs like This Week in Virology, where he interviews researchers to translate evolving evidence publicly.
In this interview with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Dr. Dan Wilson explains how he debunks vaccine myths and pseudoscience while maintaining a central focus on empathy. He explains why misinformation spreads faster than corrections, describes recurring anti-vaccine tropes repackaged during COVID-19, and shares tactics that combine plain language, analogies, and “reality-breaking” facts. Wilson discusses the role of large platforms, algorithmic moderation pitfalls, and the importance of stories about disease harms alongside data. He contrasts global, self-correcting science with conspiracy theories that require implausible collusion, and he critiques maverick branding that misuses terminology. The conversation closes with practical content recommendations and a call for evidence-anchored communication.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with Dr. Dan Wilson, a molecular biologist turned science communicator who runs the YouTube channel Debunk the Funk with Dr. Wilson, where he explains vaccine science, COVID-19 controversies, and other disputed claims in plain language. He earned a Bachelor of Science in Biotechnology and Molecular Biology from Clarion University and a PhD in Biological Sciences from Carnegie Mellon University, where he researched ribosome biogenesis. In the industry, he has worked on vector-based gene therapies, including adenovirus and AAV platforms. Wilson also appears on programs such as This Week in Virology and interviews researchers to translate evolving evidence for the public, aiming to raise scientific literacy while reducing misinformation. Thank you for joining me. My first question is this: I have read, and I believe this is supported by peer-reviewed research, that debunking misinformation once it is already circulating is much more complicated than creating it.
Dr. Dan Wilson: Yes. Once claims are out there and believed, they are much harder to undo because scientists are not traditionally trained as communicators. They are trained to conduct research, write it up, and publish it in journals for their colleagues. There has also been a cultural attitude in science that spending time debunking or communicating with the public is a distraction from research. Colleagues may ask, “Why spend time on this instead of reviewing my paper or serving on a study section?” Scientists often feel pressure to say yes to everything.
This leaves science journalists and other communicators to address misinformation. While many do excellent work, they may not have the same platforms as those spreading misinformation. As a result, the debunking effort often lags.
Jacobsen: Within virology, how does this play out today? We frequently see U.S. health agencies, such as HHS and NIH, cited in public debates, and high-profile figures—including RFK Jr.—amplifying these claims. This should not be reduced to a single personality, since misinformation also has institutional and systemic roots. But how severe has the problem become since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic to the present moment? Where is this being sourced? Are they bats from Wuhan? Is it a bioweapon? Or just redubbings of old “Yellow Peril” plays? What is your take on the narratives that keep popping up?
Wilson: You asked about virology, but it also extends into vaccinology. It has gotten bad. Having someone like Robert F. Kennedy Jr., hypothetically, as head of HHS has been compared to putting a flat-earther in charge of NASA. It’s a fair comparison, and it is a bad situation overall. RFK Jr. has built a career on denying that vaccines are safe, effective, and should be used. He has even questioned germ theory in specific contexts.
He has made claims that HIV does not cause AIDS and has expressed support for miasma theory over germ theory in some of his writings. To paint a clear picture of how dire the situation has become, consider that this is the person influencing vaccine policy. It shows in his actions.
He recently released a video claiming that vaccines did not contribute to decreases in child mortality, which is false. That is a long-standing anti-vaccine trope. It is undeniable that vaccines have significantly reduced child mortality worldwide. Improvements in sanitation, housing, and healthcare certainly contributed as well, but they cannot explain the elimination of diseases like measles in the U.S. Vaccines played a significant role in this achievement.
Now we have someone in charge who is promoting misinformation that has been a cornerstone of anti-vaccine rhetoric for decades. He is pushing toward a goal of restricting vaccines as much as possible, even taking steps to find loopholes to remove them from the market. At first, his ability to cause damage might be limited. But it has become clear that he is actively working to undermine vaccines, and that is deeply concerning.
Jacobsen: Large platforms are playing a role here. Some of the biggest podcasts operate as dual purveyors: on the one hand, amplifying everyday gossip—whether it’s about sports culture, music, or actors trying to reveal another side of themselves—and on the other hand, serving as vehicles for anti-science and pseudoscience. The first category isn’t necessarily bad; in fact, some of it humanizes public figures in healthy ways. However, on the other hand, there is an open palm, continually receiving and spreading harmful ideas.
This includes prominent anti-vaxxers, people blaming COVID-19 on conspiracies, and purveyors of pseudoscience. Some of it is relatively benign—like pseudoscientific archaeology—but when it comes to vaccines, the stakes are much higher. In this ecosystem, you and others like you have gained a significant following. While not as large as the big-name platforms, your audience is still substantial because you present a critical, professional, expert lens. What is your process for identifying misinformation and systematically taking it down, whether in a serious academic tone or with humour?
Wilson: One thing to know about me is that I used to believe many conspiracy theories. That stage of my life gave me a good sense of what circulates in conspiracy circles and why people find it convincing. I never fully believed anti-vaccine conspiracy theories, but I was aware of them.
When I became a scientist and started focusing on science communication, I decided to address vaccines since they fall within my field of expertise. I was already familiar with many of the anti-vaccine tropes. When I consider what needs to be addressed, I often examine the claims that have persisted over time.
Many anti-vaccine claims are not new; they get recycled repeatedly. We saw this throughout COVID-19. Most of the so-called “new” claims about vaccines during the pandemic had already been made about other diseases and vaccines in the past. They were repackaged for the current moment. That’s why I often target these recurring tropes—such as the generic claim that vaccines are unsafe—because they form the foundation of so much misinformation.
Claims that vaccines cause more harm than good were widespread during COVID-19 and are still circulating on large podcast platforms. To support these ideas, people often recycle the same tactics used against childhood vaccines that have been proven safe for decades. I focus on those topics, then go through my process: reading the scientific literature and trying to explain things in a way that might have convinced me back when I believed conspiracy theories. I know no single approach will reach everyone, but that’s the method I try to use.
Jacobsen: I’m thinking less about specific content and more about patterns. What claims are relatively easy to debunk or present correctly, and which are genuinely tricky? I don’t necessarily mean in terms of complexity, but in terms of presentation.
Wilson: Most anti-vaccine myths aren’t challenging to debunk in terms of evidence. It’s usually clear why they’re wrong. The real challenge lies in presentation—communicating the truth in a way that resonates with the audience.
For example, when people come forward with emotional stories—claiming that a vaccine injured them or someone they know—that becomes difficult. Their argument isn’t based on data but on personal pain, and you can’t simply dismiss that. To respond effectively, you need to go beyond statistics. You have to acknowledge their story while also providing real stories from the other side: what suffering from these diseases looked like before vaccines, and how much harm has been prevented because of them.
The goal is to help people see the broader picture and come to some resolution, even if they remain emotionally attached to their view. That requires much listening, careful preparation, and the ability to present historical context, personal stories, and statistics in a way that doesn’t come across as cold or dismissive—especially when someone may be aggressive or defensive in their stance.
Jacobsen: At the Beyond Belief Conference in the mid-2000s, Neil deGrasse Tyson spoke with Richard Dawkins. Dawkins, at the time, reflected the early New Atheist stance, arguing that simply presenting the facts should be sufficient. However, as we now know, people often double down when confronted with facts alone.
Tyson’s approach, paraphrased, was to have sensitivity to where the person is at and to gauge the delivery accordingly. That seems like common sense—we do it in most areas of life. For example, if someone is grieving and believes they’ll be reunited with their loved ones in the afterlife, you don’t immediately correct them with scientific evidence. You wait, or you offer comfort.
So, how do you convey scientific thinking without simply presenting “the gold standards of methodology” to someone, especially on hot-button issues?
Wilson: I try to use many analogies. I break concepts down to the basics and ask myself, “How would I want this presented if I were an undergraduate—or even a high school student—taking an introductory course?” Then I connect that explanation back to the broader concept I’m trying to convey or debunk.
My goal is to frame complex issues in simple, relatable ways. That’s generally my approach, though coming up with specific examples on the spot can be difficult.
Jacobsen: What about when new issues arise—like when SARS-CoV-2 first emerged and conspiracy theories spread almost immediately? Some people, the same day, were already spouting conspiracies on their platforms. Others, with an Alex Jones-type persona, leaned more naturally into conspiratorial thinking.
On the other hand, there were people whose perspectives changed after experiencing tragedy, such as when they saw loved ones die in overcrowded New York hospitals during the pandemic because they hadn’t been vaccinated. In those cases, trauma became the reality test. How do you think about this spectrum, where some can be educated beforehand, and others only change their minds through harsh personal experience?
Wilson: That’s the range we’re dealing with. In addition to analogies, I focus on phrases or facts that can serve as “reality breaks” for people immersed in conspiracies. When I believed conspiracies myself, I had built an entire worldview around them. Crawling out of that rabbit hole required multiple reality breaks before I could entirely leave it behind.
With vaccines, one example is that pediatricians vaccinate their own children. If vaccines were truly harmful and there were a global cover-up, why would doctors risk their own families? You can extend that to scientists, world leaders, even purveyors of vaccine misinformation—many of them are vaccinated or vaccinate their kids. Highlighting that contradiction can sometimes prompt people to rethink.
I also thought of an analogy for virus deniers—the “flat-earthers of biology.” Some claim viruses aren’t real or don’t cause disease. For them, I compare genetic methods in biology to crime scene investigation. At a crime scene, a sample may contain DNA from multiple humans, pets, pigeons, squirrels, and bacteria. Yet investigators can isolate human DNA and even identify individuals. Similarly, we can isolate viral genetic material from a complex sample. That analogy can help people see how viruses are identified.
Jacobsen: Without leaning too much on personalities, some public figures do warrant critique. One I hadn’t heard of until recently was Houtra, but more prominently, Brett Weinstein of the Weinstein brothers. How do you view their approach? What are the common epistemic traps in their delivery of data, whether outright falsehoods or skewed interpretations?
Wilson: Both Weinstein brothers present themselves as mavericks—rogue experts ostracized by mainstream colleagues. That image is inherently appealing: the insider turned outsider who now brings information “they don’t want you to know.” From that position, they misuse terminology and frame their arguments in ways that lend undue credibility to fringe claims. I’ve specifically called out Bret Weinstein for misusing terms.
He often uses terminology he doesn’t fully understand. I’ve pointed this out before, and while he’s responded to me on his podcast, he’s refused to engage with me directly. That itself fits the pattern: presenting as the ostracized expert while avoiding direct scrutiny from specialists who could call them out.
They insulate themselves in echo chambers, speaking primarily to their own audiences or to like-minded individuals. When Bret Weinstein talks about COVID and vaccines, he frequently misuses immunology terminology, then follows with a dramatic claim such as, “This could be the biggest bioweapon ever, whether by accident or design.” It sounds alarming, but collapses under examination. It’s often little more than repeating jargon without grasping the meaning. Still, when presented with confidence, it becomes an effective propaganda tool.
Jacobsen: There’s a space for humour mixed with contempt while presenting facts, especially in popular forums like YouTube. If you remove the humour, the arguments and evidence remain, but style matters. With figures like the Weinsteins—or even Sabine Hossenfelder in some instances—the dynamic is clear: intelligent individuals, each with their own expertise, extend themselves beyond their respective domains. They co-opt terminology from expert fields, as you said, and wrap it in the appeal of the “maverick.”
That’s the clothing—the branding. The reality is closer to the emperor having no clothes. These are not fools. They are smart people applying their intelligence in the wrong arena. That’s what makes them effective but also damaging. As a journalist, I strive not to reduce critiques to personal attacks. I deal with experts, whether through lived experience or lifelong study, and the damage comes when sharp minds misuse authority outside their proper scope.
Jacobsen: Often, I’m speaking with either an expert in their academic field or a spokesperson for a community organization. I can’t absorb 10,000 hours of lived experience in Ukraine or a lifetime of virology research, but I can, with enough interviewing experience, know which questions to ask so I can help convey a general sense—with details—of the reality within their domain of expertise. Does that seem like a fair characterization?
Wilson: Yes, totally.
Jacobsen: The United States has the First Amendment. Canada has laws against hate speech, emergency tribunals, and commissions. Combating misinformation seems more complicated because it spreads quickly on privately owned platforms, including X, Meta, Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube. At the same time, what are some of the benefits of being able to speak freely as an expert while combating misinformation?
Wilson: It’s definitely a double-edged sword. Being able to share information freely on platforms like Instagram, Twitter, or YouTube is a benefit for those of us debunking misinformation. However, I’ve seen the algorithms cause real damage, as they can’t always distinguish between those spreading misinformation and those debunking it.
For example, creators often get flagged simply because they repeat a false claim to explain why it’s wrong. The system can’t always differentiate between someone promoting bad information and someone correcting it, so content gets taken down. If that restriction loosens, it helps, but leaving misinformation completely unchecked causes real harm. We witnessed this during the COVID-19 pandemic, when information spread incredibly quickly and affected everyone—through lockdowns, economic disruptions, illness, and death. People were scared, so they turned to the internet, where content went viral quickly. Sometimes the viral content was accurate, but very often it was not.
During the pandemic, there wasn’t an effective way to catch and filter misinformation quickly. As a result, things went viral that were incorrect—sometimes originating from official sources, sometimes misinterpreted by the public, and sometimes deliberately distorted by those spreading misinformation. That created much confusion. Some people even used content removals as “proof” that they had been right all along, which only fueled distrust and momentum for loosening restrictions everywhere.
Jacobsen: What is the American public generally good at figuring out on its own with enough time?
Wilson: Honestly, this might not sound optimistic, but I don’t think the American public as a whole is excellent at discerning fact from fiction. That said, when it comes to vaccines, most people in the U.S. still believe vaccines are safe, effective, and necessary because their benefits outweigh the risks.
However, there’s also a large enough portion of the population swayed by anti-vaccine rhetoric that we’ve seen people elected or put into positions of power who promote extreme misinformation—claims like vaccines being bioweapons—which are easily debunked with even a basic Google search.
So while many people are capable of separating fact from fiction, many are not. As a society, we have much work to do to ensure misinformation doesn’t win. The stakes are high: if misinformation dominates, people die, lose years of life, or lose years of healthy living. We’re already seeing the effects—this year, the United States recorded its first measles deaths in decades.
If not the 1990s, then at least the early 2000s—after that, measles was considered eradicated in the United States. But now it’s back. There are enough cases, and enough people refusing medical advice, that children are dying. The same thing is happening with pertussis: we now have pertussis deaths again. And we even saw the first polio case in decades in the U.S. in the past couple of years. All of those deaths were among unvaccinated people.
So we see that problem, and we also see people foregoing evidence-based cancer treatments because of things they read online or hear from influencers. For example, many people are unaware that Steve Jobs might have survived much longer if he had opted for conventional treatment. His pancreatic cancer was in a form and stage that was initially treatable, but he delayed treatment in favour of alternative therapies rooted in Eastern philosophy. That decision cost him time and, ultimately, his life.
Jacobsen: Yes, there’s a notion sometimes of so-called Western science or Western ways of knowing. I imagine you’ve come across this. But whoever is practicing science is simply doing science. It isn’t geographically or hemispherically bound. To apply the term “different ways of knowing” makes little sense if those ways do not tell you something valid about the objective world—reliably, validly, and repeatably.
So how do you convey, in your video presentations, the idea that there has to be a universal standard for determining what is true and what is not? For example, a dowser with divining rods may believe they have a special ability to find water, but if their results are no better than chance, then what they think is false. How do you get across the idea that cultural labels like “Western science” are misleading, and that science is simply a method, not a cultural artifact?
Wilson: You’re right—there’s no such thing as Western medicine or Western science. Both medicine and science are global endeavours. I try to emphasize that as much as possible, because one of the things that kept me stuck in conspiratorial thinking was the belief in monolithic they’s—whether “they” were scientists, doctors, or governments, supposedly all conspiring to maintain the status quo. That isn’t true.
Scientists continually strive to expand the boundaries of knowledge. The real currency in science is research papers. To publish, results need to be novel, meaningful, and ideally exciting. If scientists discovered something that could cure cancer or dramatically improve human health, that discovery would be published because publishing groundbreaking work is how careers are made.
If a scientist were to overturn long-held beliefs, they’d be famous. They’d get the next Nobel Prize. They’d earn all the credibility and recognition they could want in science. No one is going to pass that up to fall in line with some supposed “status quo.” And again, the scientific community is global. So for conspiracy theories to be true, you’d have to believe that this oppressive force exists not only in the U.S. but also in other countries with labs just as sophisticated—if not more advanced—than ours, doing similar or even better experimentation.
That goes back to what I call “reality-breaking” thoughts. You have to show people the scale of what they’re claiming. If you believe there’s a conspiracy, then what does that require? It requires believing that all scientists are ignoring evidence, all scientists are being bought off, or all scientists are too incompetent to notice. Do you really think that? Do you think every doctor in the world is okay with watching their own patients—or their own family members—die of cancer or of vaccine-preventable diseases, despite supposedly knowing how to prevent it? When you pull back the layers, you see how implausible it really is.
So I try to drill into people’s heads that the scientific community is like any other community. Take the Lord of the Rings fandom. Stephen Colbert is famous for knowing everything about it—he can tell you Merry and Pippin’s cousin’s name. It’s impressive. But if he said something wrong about the Balrog, or about Morgoth’s ancestry—well, actually Melkor before he was called Morgoth—fans would correct him. (And yes, you’re right, he was a Vala, not a Maia.) The point is, no matter who you are, if you get something wrong, the community will call you out.
That’s how science works. If someone says something that doesn’t hold up—if other people can show through experiments and data that it’s wrong—they’ll correct it. Because at the end of the day, scientists are committed to reality. They’re committed to what nature is telling us, just like Tolkien fans are committed to what’s in the text. Nothing else matters. There’s no force oppressive enough to silence angry nerds when they see something wrong.
That’s what I try to present in many of my videos.
Jacobsen: Joe Rogan is mixed. I don’t agree with people who say he’s all bad, and I don’t agree with people who say he’s all good. Clearly, he has a massive platform. He does give airtime to people who spread nonsense, and while they have freedom of speech, the problem comes in the fallout—mainly when misinformation influences people in positions of power.
I don’t have an immediate solution for that. Rogan books the guests he finds interesting, and as long as his benchmark for credibility is lower than scientific standards, he will continue to invite pseudoscience promoters. So, any solutions? Honestly, the only real solution I see is post-hoc correction.
Wilson: My opinion is that Rogan needs someone who is both willing and prepared with all the facts to sit across from him and say—maybe not literally, but effectively—“Joe, when it comes to vaccines and COVID, you’re wrong, and here’s why.” Then walk him through the evidence point by point. Please don’t call him an idiot outright, because he’d shut down, but challenge him directly with facts.
Unfortunately, he’s siloed himself deeper into a conspiratorial rabbit hole by primarily inviting anti-vaxxers and COVID denialists, instead of credible, pro-science voices who could push back. He used to host scientists and evidence-based communicators, but during the COVID pandemic, his guest pool devolved into denialists and sensationalists who reinforced his biases.
There was an opportunity missed when Rogan publicly challenged Dr. Peter Hotez to debate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Opinions differ in the scientific community about whether anyone should have taken that stage. Someone should have. Hotez is an excellent communicator with an H-index of around 140, which is extraordinary, but he doesn’t do debates—and that’s his right. Debating is a skill, and scientists aren’t typically trained for it. Still, someone should have been ready and willing to counter RFK Jr.’s claims in that forum. That could have been valuable.
He’s been an academic physician for a long time—publishing, producing research, and even creating affordable medical products for people who need them. He’s excellent.
Jacobsen: I’ve interviewed Gordon Guyatt of evidence-based medicine several times. When I interviewed Harriet Hall—she’s since passed away—she brought up science-based medicine. So I asked Gordon, “Have you ever heard of evidence-based medicine followed by science-based medicine? They made some tweaks to it.” He said, “I’ve never heard of it.” Clearly, science-based medicine was in the orbit, adding a skeptical lens, but evidence-based medicine was the core—Eric Topol, Gordon Guyatt, and now Peter Hotez. I wasn’t fully aware. What is the one video, maybe two, everyone should watch to get the best characterization of you and what you stand for?
Wilson: I’ll name two. First, a recent video where I went through Suzanne Humphries’ appearance on the Joe Rogan show. She’s one of the original anti-vaxxers who has been spreading misinformation for a long time. Rogan had her on earlier this year. I made a 90-minute video breaking down her claims and explaining why they’re wrong. That’s a strong representation of what I do.
Second, I debated two anti-vaxxers live on stage in New York City, alongside another YouTuber, Professor Dave Explains. That was a good demonstration of what happens when people relying only on hyperbole and stories are confronted by two people who know the science and can call them out directly.
Jacobsen: The greatest joy of my life is interviewing secular freethought leaders globally. Take Leo Igwe—he deals with witchcraft allegations that lead to people being killed in parts of West Africa. Then, on the other end, you have highly advanced societies importing talent while their core education systems often plateau at a sixth- to eighth-grade reading level. It’s a strange global landscape. People usually ask what we’re supposed to say to those working on YouTube, science communication, or secular activism. I think the only proper response is ‘thank you.’
So, Dr. Wilson, thank you very much for the work you do, and for teaming up with ‘Professor’ Dave Explains to advance evidence and reason in public discourse.
Jacobsen: It’s essential work, and we need more of it—and more urgently. Whether this is a temporary chapter or the new normal in the United States, I don’t know. However, I hope we will see a scientifically skeptical and informed phase of culture emerge in the next decade.
Wilson: I hope so, too, Scott. Thanks so much for having me—and for thanking me. It really is appreciated.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/16
Riane Eisler, an Austrian-born American systems scientist, futurist, and human rights advocate, is renowned for her influential work on cultural transformation and gender equity. Best known for The Chalice and the Blade, she introduced the partnership versus dominator models of social organization. She received the Humanist Pioneer Award, and in conversation with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Eisler emphasized the urgent need for humanists to focus on values-based systems and the transformative power of caring economics. Drawing on neuroscience and history, she argues that peace begins at home and calls for a shift in worldview to build more equitable, sustainable, and compassionate societies rooted in connection rather than control. The three books of hers of note that could be highlighted are The Chalice and the Blade—now in its 57th U.S. printing with 30 foreign editions, The Real Wealth of Nations, and Nurturing Our Humanity: How Domination and Partnership Shape Our Brains, Lives, and Future (Oxford University Press, 2019). In this interview with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Eisler advances her partnership–domination framework as a whole-systems lens for social change. She argues that peace begins at home, that childhood caregiving and gender equity shape brains, policies, and democracies, and that caring economics measures real wealth beyond GDP. Drawing on neuroscience, history, and Nordic and other examples (including thousands of partnership-oriented prehistory), Eisler critiques fragmentation across religion, politics, and academia, urging the development of updated categories and relational dynamics. She addresses backlash against equity, contrasts partnership and domination, and invites participation in the Peace Begins at Home Summit to accelerate humane, sustainable, and connection-centred societies.Interview conducted October 4, 2025, in the afternoon Pacific Time.Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Hello, and welcome again to Partnership Systems with Dr. Riane Eisler, attorney and founder of the Center for Partnership Systems. We have a global virtual conference on October 29, 2025. Please sign up! You can sign up for the Peace Begins at Home Summit.Riane Eisler: Registration is at peacebeginsathomesummit.org. Please sign up, because it is going to be fabulous.Jacobsen: It is the most wonderful time of the year outside of Christmas.Eisler: It addresses the root causes of our problems rather than simply the symptoms. The alternative to domination systems is partnership systems. It is essential to discuss ontology (how we see the world) and epistemology (our method or lens for seeing the world) because the categories we are taught often fragment reality—such as religious versus secular, East versus West, and left versus right—leaving us with a fragmented picture of realityIf we are asking what we know and how we know it, we need better lenses. That has been my work: connecting the dots, including how the roles of women and men (the two basic forms of humanity) are structured in society; how children are raised; and how exposure to punitive, violent domination patterns—whether in families or religious settings—normalizes violence. As usually framed, ontology and epistemology can be of limited practical use because inherited categories divide our consciousness and marginalize most of humanity— women and children. From a deeper perspective, we need updated language and social categories to understand reality. My calling has been to clarify the underlying realities of two human possibilities: the partnership and domination ends of the social continuum.Jacobsen: People who come from domination-oriented upbringings—especially religious backgrounds—are often taught to focus on the other world rather than what is right in front of them. Their way of experiencing the world, their existential reality and epistemology, becomes frayed or dissociated from immediate meaning. How does that connect to partnership studies?Eisler: It comes down to trauma. If we grow up in domination-oriented families—usually highly punitive, often violent—families that both care for us and hurt us, families we depend on for life, food, and shelter, we have to deny that they cause us pain. Denial then becomes a habitual part of how we perceive reality. Religion plays a part in this, though I always emphasize that at the core of most world religions—Christianity, Islam, Judaism—there are profound teachings about caring. I also distinguish between the biblical Judaism of the Hebrew Scriptures and the Judaism of the Diaspora, which emphasized mutual care; that is the tradition in which I was raised as a Jew.But if we return to the central question—what is reality, and how do we know it?—We cannot understand society by looking only through the rigid categories inherited from more rigid domination times: religious versus secular, Eastern versus Western, Northern versus Southern, capitalist versus socialist, right versus left. These fragments our consciousness and make us focus narrowly. Partnership and domination studies instead focus on two questions: what kinds of relations—whether interpersonal or international—does a culture support or inhibit, and what is the relationship between the key components of a social system? Two pillars are especially critical: how gender roles and relations are constructed, and how caregiving in families is structured, since most of us grow up in families.This is why I am interested in root causes rather than symptoms, and in strategic interventions to shift societies from domination toward partnership. Otherwise, we end up constantly putting out fires caused by domination systems, which keeps those systems intact.Jacobsen: Much of science is stereotyped as looking only at particular parts of the world, ignoring the larger story. There is fragmentation across subfields, but then findings often begin to converge across disciplines—an ongoing multidisciplinary convergence. Where does partnership studies orient itself within those trends?Eisler: Partnership studies are more concerned with the construction of social systems than with ultimate cosmological realities, such as string theory. Not that I’m not fascinated by those, but at best, they remain abstract. Interestingly, two physicists have recently won the Nobel Prize in Physics for their work on quantum entanglement and its applications at the subatomic level. That reality is often ignored, and in fact, we are conditioned to ignore it by myths—religious myths like original sin or secular myths like selfish genes.Take societies that have moved closer to partnership, where gender equity is greater, fathers share caregiving responsibilities, gender roles are more blurred, women hold 40–50 percent of parliamentary seats, and public policies are oriented toward care. In Sweden, Finland, and Norway, for example, these societies not only support their own citizens but also invest a significant portion of their GDP in helping people elsewhere in the world, even those with no genetic ties to them.This is why I am deeply skeptical about applying knowledge from other species directly to humans. Human evolution has brought with it the capacity for empathy—unless people are traumatized into suppressing it or restricting it only to their in-group, particularly to men positioned as controllers.Jacobsen: How are you applying those foundations? I don’t mean physics, but rather the social sciences—psychology, or perhaps cognitive developmental neuroscience—disciplines that can incorporate a partnership orientation into understanding social reality. You are really identifying the fundamentals of how people relate to one another along the partnership–domination social scale.Eisler: The reason this scale is so important in understanding our cultural and social contexts is that psychology, and now neuroscience, have long made an assumption not supported by the evidence: they focus almost exclusively on individual families. But families do not arise in a vacuum. Families are profoundly shaped by the norms and ideal norms of their culture or subculture. You cannot truly study them without whole-systems analysis. Studying different aspects of behaviour in isolation, or institutions in isolation from their context, fragments our consciousness. This is why there is such a need—both epistemologically and ontologically—for new categories. We cannot see reality clearly without holistic, whole-systems categories.Jacobsen: Why is there a backlash now against partnership epistemology?Eisler: It is a backlash against many organized social movements that have accelerated over the last 300 years, disrupting domination systems and creating disequilibrium. I draw on new theoretical frameworks that examine how living systems are organized and how they change. Societies are complex living systems. If we only examine isolated institutions, such as the family, we cannot fully comprehend them. The family must be understood in its larger cultural context. Of course, some families don’t conform, but if the ideal norm in society rejects equity and denies the value of diversity, that cultural framing shapes everything. These are not just family questions but deeply cultural ones. And when it comes to religion, I always return to this: at the core of most religious traditions are teachings of interconnection.The first point I want to make about both ontology and epistemology—about what we know and how we know it—is that they are culturally constructed. They depend primarily on the categories provided by language, especially social categories. That is crucial to keep in mind. Due to my background and life experiences, my calling has been to discover, through whole-systems analysis, an alternative perspective on societies that transcends conventional categories, such as right and left, religious and secular, Eastern and Western, Northern and Southern, and capitalist and socialist. All of these categories were inherited from more rigid domination times, rather than partnership times. They fragment our consciousness, focusing on separate aspects—geography, faith, economics—and force us constantly to jump between them. This fragmentation does not serve us well.The first point, then, is that ontology and epistemology are culturally influenced, shaped by language and the categories available to us. The second point is that when we look at social reality through a non-fragmenting, whole-systems lens—the partnership–domination social scale—we begin to see patterns and connections that would otherwise remain invisible. To do this, I developed a methodology called the Study of Relational Dynamics, which focuses on a fundamental question neglected by earlier categories: what kinds of relations exist? Are they punitive and violent, or are they caring and mutually respectful? Does a particular social system support or inhibit such ties?A second crucial question—again often ignored in conventional approaches—is: what are the key elements of a society that must be considered in analyzing its fundamental character? How do they mutually reinforce one another, either sustaining or shifting a society toward partnership or toward more rigid domination? These elements include areas that conventional frameworks often marginalize: first, the structure of gender roles and relations between men and women; and second, childhood and family life. Neuroscience tells us that what children experience and observe—primarily within families—shapes nothing less than the brain itself, influencing how we think, feel, act, and even vote. Yet our inherited categories largely ignore this knowledge.Much of it comes down to those first five years of life, when our brains—still forming at birth—rapidly grow, develop synapses, and build connections. You do not need to be particularly clever to grasp this, but you do need a different worldview, one that connects rather than fragments.Jacobsen: Who would you consider your intellectual predecessors, individually? And which cultures were most oriented toward partnership in pre-contemporary millennia?Eisler: That’s a serious question. To start, cultures that deny climate change are cultures in deep denial of reality itself. Consider Russia, for example: its economy depends heavily on fossil fuel exports, so there is little incentive to acknowledge the crisis. The Soviet Union was similar. Lake Baikal was severely polluted, and of course, there was the Chernobyl nuclear disaster. The pattern was to exploit nature as quickly and as fully as possible.By contrast, many of the Nordic nations that have moved toward the partnership side demonstrate a different pattern. Their legislatures are 40 to 50 percent women. Fathers take active roles in caregiving. There is a greater gender balance in politics, parenting, and family life, as well as recognition of climate change and efforts to address it. Norway is an interesting contradiction—it relies heavily on oil exports, yet its broader social principles are firmly rooted in partnership values. At some point, the oil will run out, and we will see whether partnership principles ultimately prevail.Partnership also includes harmony with nature, rather than the domination worldview we inherited from religious traditions that taught “dominion over nature.”Jacobsen: Returning to individuals, then, who do you consider your intellectual predecessors? Who fills the acknowledgments in your books?Eisler: Well, there are many intellectual predecessors, half of whom I disagree with completely. Take St. Thomas Aquinas. In his attempt to understand reality, he said some absurd things. For example, in accepting hierarchies of domination, he claimed that questioning your social status would be like a nose wanting to be an eye. That isn’t very smart. He also argued that original sin is caused by sex, which is equally irrational. Yet people are taught this. Parents take their children to see violence without concern, but if there is any sex, then it is considered immoral.I wrote a whole book on this called Sacred Pleasure, where I introduced the concept of the erotization of domination and violence. As in James Bond—007—we’ve seen sexuality either vilified, treated as sinful, or equated with domination. For instance, the missionary position enshrines the man on top. Or sexuality is linked to violence, as in pornography. In Sacred Pleasure I make a clear distinction between erotica and pornography because they are not the same.You also asked about the epistemology of religion. In epistemology, you can have subjective or so-called objective criteria. But the so-called objective criteria are always socially conditioned. What shapes society? It’s ideal norms. Suppose society insists that men are superior to women. In that case, you end up with “scientific knowledge” that perpetuates the myth that woman contributes nothing to reproduction—that she is merely a container.Jacobsen: What you’re getting at is more about the orientation of the findings themselves, rather than a rejection of the conclusions.Eisler: What findings? They only ever found what they wanted to believe was true.Jacobsen: Well, positive accidents happen—like penicillin, or LSD. Eisler: But look, it’s not science versus religion. At the core of all religious scriptures are teachings of partnership—caring, caregiving, nonviolence, and the empathic principle of “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Then you get the dominator overlay: myths blaming Eve for humanity’s ills, Pandora in Greek mythology, or the Iliad and Odyssey, which are pure propaganda for domination. I plan to write more about this because once you examine it closely, it becomes fascinating.The broader point is that humanity is awakening from a state of domination. For the past 5,000 to 10,000 years, societies have shifted toward domination, embedding it in categories, myths, and norms—such as the paterfamilias as the head of the household. This is our cultural inheritance, and changing it is our task.Jacobsen: What about how science is being applied in the humanities, too?Eisler: What were the humanities? They were traditionally defined by the works of long-dead, primarily white men. But that is not the totality of the humanities. Even if we accept the term “human” in humanities as inclusive, the truth is that human rights concepts affecting everyone, including women, should be part of the humanities. The “emancipation” of women should be part of the humanities. Children’s rights—to be raised without violence and trauma—should be part of the humanities. Not everything Aristotle said should be canonized. Much of it was harmful. For example, he claimed that women and enslaved people were “born that way” and therefore naturally subordinate. That is deductive logic misapplied.Jacobsen: Surprisingly similar to some Hindu traditions. Eisler: You asked me earlier why there is currently a regression to domination. Let me answer that directly. We rarely consider this regression in the broader historical context. Over the last 300 years, as the Industrial Revolution gained momentum, it created profound disequilibrium. During the same period, organized movements emerged to challenge the same thing: domination traditions.The Enlightenment and the Rights of Man movement challenged the supposedly divinely ordained right of kings to rule over their “subjects.” The feminist movement challenged the supposedly divinely ordained right of men to rule over women and children in their homes. Abolitionists, the civil rights movement, and Black Lives Matter challenged the supposedly divinely ordained right of a “superior” race to dominate an “inferior” one. The environmental movement challenged the tradition of “dominion”—the idea that man alone counts, with the right to rule over all living things.The peace movement challenged violence itself, which is central to domination systems because they rely on fear to maintain power. The movement for economic and social equity—not sameness, but equity—challenged domination economics, whether in the form of emperors, sheikhs, tsars, feudal lords, or neoliberal “trickle-down” economics. In every case, those at the top claimed divine or natural justification, while those below were told to content themselves with the scraps. This system even encouraged the oppressed to identify with their oppressors, living in denial of their own subordination.Today, we see regression in renewed efforts to reassert male dominance, impose rigid gender stereotypes, and deny the existence of gay and transgender people—even though LGBTQ+ people have existed throughout history. We also see renewed attempts to tighten control over children, including what they are taught, as part of maintaining domination.Jacobsen: Next time, we had governance and political theory on the agenda, and how Machiavelli melded fear, like Trump. Do you have any preliminary thoughts on that before we proceed?Eisler: Well, someone teaching at a religious law school in Southern California used my work and contrasted it with Machiavelli’s theory of power. Power can be viewed in two ways: chalice power and blade power. In other words, domination power or partnership power.Jacobsen: It’s not a one-to-one mapping between Machiavelli and Trump. Machiavelli was a legitimate political strategist. Trump is more like a bull in a china shop.Eisler: Well, he’s a circus barker.Jacobsen: Yes, that’s a good way to put it.Eisler: And he really is skilled at manipulating people—especially evangelicals—pretending that he cares about them, when in reality he is deeply traumatized and unstable, frankly.I wrote in Sacred Pleasure that deconstructionism is a very conservative way of looking at the world. If there are no standards, what do people fall back on? The old domination standards. But there are standards—human rights standards.It really comes back to that: we have not yet found universal acceptance of human rights standards. That is still a developing field. Remember, the concept of children’s rights is a relatively recent development.Jacobsen: That’s the most signed-on-to convention. 192 of 193 member states have ratified it. The last to sign was Somalia. The only one that signed but never ratified, more than three decades ago, is the United States.Eisler: The United States is a country that consciously or unconsciously believes in domination.Jacobsen: It’s a human rights pariah in specific domains.Eisler: I wouldn’t put it that way. It is a country with a complicated mix of partnership and domination. There are countries, like Afghanistan, that have long traditions of domination, of huge gaps between those on top and bottom, of authoritarian rule and violence, where gender inequality is paramount. Or fundamentalist Iran, same thing: much more domination. They throw gay people off cliffs, hang them, kill them, and burn them. And now the United States is in the midst of a regression toward domination, but I don’t think it can last—not with the damage it’s doing and the suffering it’s causing.Jacobsen: This huge category of angry and concerned people. There are also more educated women than ever before, and that is not a rising tide you can sink.Eisler: You really can’t, and, interestingly, the new Archbishop of Canterbury is a woman.Jacobsen: Well, that transition had more to do with stepping down in shame over failures with the sexual abuse scandal, right? So that’s one thing. This was a PR move. The stronger case is Iceland: three of the four major parties are led by women. The Prime Minister, the President, and the head of the national church are all women. That’s a more direct case.Eisler: I agree that some of it was politics of convenience, shame, and PR. But the whole winner-loser two-party system of the United States is a disaster.Jacobsen: It’s a weird system where even when one party wins, both sides of the population lose. The Democratic Party, in many ways, is a center-right party. In the U.S., they’re considered left, but in Europe, they’d likely be regarded as center-right, because they’re still a party of war.Eisler: In Europe at least, the system forces theparties to work together, since coalition-building is required to form a government.Jacobsen: Yeah, that’s true.Eisler: So the system itself is not a good one in the United States, and every attempt to establish a third party here has been a total failure.Jacobsen: Bernie [Sanders] fell.Eisler: Yes.Jacobsen: But he was torpedoed by the Democrats. That’s the thing.Eisler: With both parties, the first step forward would be to abolish this notion that money is speech.Jacobsen: Right, Citizens United, too.Eisler: And to change the First Amendment, because hate speech is very, very powerful.Jacobsen: That second proposal is implausible to happen in the United States.Eisler: Well, it may. It has happened elsewhere—for example, in Canada, where certain restrictions on pornography were upheld, though they weren’t here.Jacobsen: But you’re dealing with a much different culture in Canada, too, a much more British culture in Canada.Eisler: It may be a more British culture. However, the United States was founded by men of their time—men who were enslavers and excluders of women, and most men, men without a certain amount of property. That’s the story of the country. Still, it was the first nation not to have a monarchy and not to idealize it.Jacobsen: Well, I think you’ve gone back to the time of the Orange King.Eisler: Look, there were attempts.. Anyway, I’m glad I found the Fibonacci numbers, because they tell us something about both ontology and epistemology—that our focus has been very selective. These numbers, as we will discuss separately, connect us to epistemology and ontology—how we know what is true and what is or is not a cultural construct, to the partnership-domination scale. We have not had the lenses to understand how different these questions and their answers are in partnership versus domination systems, or in societies where the two are in conflict. That is what we need to understand. It is not about blame or shame. We inherited these domination worldviews from earlier, more authoritarian, male-dominated times. Remember what I said about St. Augustine? He was a spokesman for his time.But it isn’t religion. It isn’t faith. The fact is, there is so much we cannot understand through “objective” observation. We do not have the necessary equipment to understand some things, such as the Fibonacci numbers. Why does this ratio appear? Is Einstein right that “God does not play dice with the universe,” whatever that means? I’ve never figured it out. But it suggests that Einstein suspected some design in the universe.
Jacobsen: Right, yes. He did say that. There’s a letter he wrote to a man who asked him about God, and in it, he was very clear. He was generous in tone, but he did not endorse belief in God or traditional religion. In fact, he dismissed religious fables as essentially childish. He was actually quite sharp in parts of that letter. There are moments, however, where he made his position very clear and mentioned how there were deliberate lies spread about him in the public sphere. Many of which continue today. Anyways, thank you very much for your time, Riane.Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/15
Devin Sean “D.S.” Moss is a humanist chaplain and creator of The Adventures of Memento Mori, a podcast on mortality, meaning, and connection. After hospital chaplaincy training in New York during the pandemic, he became the non-theist spiritual adviser to Oklahoma death-row prisoner Phillip Hancock, accompanying him through his November 30, 2023, execution. Moss relaunched Seasons 1 and 2 on YouTube on July 15, 2025, with Season 3 chronicling chaplaincy at Bellevue and Season 4 following his death-row work. His forthcoming book, Something to Believe In, is scheduled for HarperOne in summer 2026. Moss blends storytelling, ethics, and spiritual care.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen interviews D.S. Moss about the evolution from podcaster to humanist chaplain. Moss discusses three proximities to death—distant, near, and personal—why reflective listening and “support the defence” meet patients where they are, and how vulnerability strips away masks in hospitals and prisons. He recounts his Bellevue training, the “E.T. moment” of connection, and supporting Phillip Hancock on Oklahoma’s death row, including subtle signals like food preferences, temperature adjustments, and last-meal requests that reveal deeper needs. Moss frames his ethic as connection—to people, meaning, and Earth—and explains how spiritual care without God honours stories rather than correcting beliefs, emphasizing presence over persuasion.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we’re here with D.S. Moss (Devin Sean Moss), creator of The Adventures of Memento Mori, a podcast exploring mortality, meaning, and human connection beyond religion. After a multi-year hiatus while pursuing humanist chaplaincy, Moss relaunched Seasons 1 & 2 on YouTube on July 15, 2025, and announced that his book Something to Believe In is slated for release from HarperOne in summer 2026. During the pandemic, he completed a chaplaincy residency at Bellevue Hospital in New York. He later served as the non-theist spiritual adviser to Oklahoma death-row prisoner Phillip Hancock, accompanying him through his execution on November 30, 2023. Thank you for joining me today. What led to humanist chaplaincy? Many people are humanists or atheists. Why chaplaincy?
D.S. Moss: It fell into my lap. It wasn’t something I pursued or even considered. Through the podcast, exploring mortality, it presented itself. From The Adventures of Memento Mori, I found that people relate to death in three ways, depending on their proximity to it.
First is “out there,” as evidenced by statistics, news, and media. Second is “somewhere close,” the deaths of family, pets, or neighbours—where grief resides. That’s where most people in the modern world first encounter death. The third and closest is reflecting on one’s own mortality. That’s where my interest has always been: how do I, as a person, face my mortality?
Even then, the question people asked most was, “What do you think happens after we die?” There’s a tendency toward denial or avoidance—deflecting outward instead of staying with the self.
I created a mini-series called “The Myths of Immortality” to explore afterlife beliefs across various religions. While working on the Buddhist episode, I interviewed a Zen master in upstate New York. She was the most connected person I had interviewed, and the conversation lasted two hours instead of one. At the end, she said, “You would make a good chaplain.”
I replied, “I can’t. I don’t believe in God.”
My experience with chaplains was limited to the military. I served in an infantry battalion, and we had a chaplain, so I was familiar with the role in that context. Still, I said, “I can’t be a chaplain. I don’t believe in God.”
She responded, “I don’t believe in God either. The question is, what do you believe in?” She sensed I was a searcher, and that question, though simple, was worth pursuing. She told me, “Go meditate and see what happens.”
So I meditated on the question. The breadcrumbs became bread loaves. The very next interview I had was with an imam at NYU.
I wasn’t interviewing him because he was a chaplain, but he happened to be one—the head chaplain of the NYPD. I wanted to get Islamic perspectives on the afterlife. He had construction in his office, so he suggested we go to a colleague’s office for quiet. That office turned out to be the humanist chaplain’s.
Out of curiosity, I asked, “What is a humanist chaplain?” He said, “A chaplain who doesn’t believe in God.” This was only a week after my conversation with Trudy. From there, I just kept following the breadcrumbs.
Ultimately, humanist chaplaincy gave me two things. First, it helped me define what I believe in. Second, it acted like a beacon I could follow. It also clarified my inherent calling: to connect deeply with people and support them in their most vulnerable moments.
I used to think—selfishly, though I no longer see it that way—that being with someone at the end of their life was also a way for me to figure out how best to live my own life. It created a state of flow. From there, I went to seminary school and became a chaplain.
Jacobsen: There’s a good New Yorker-based joke about “yadda yadda yadda” in Seinfeld. For the book, which is framed around that idea, to whom are the acknowledgments?
Moss: That’s a good question. I haven’t written that part yet. I’ll have to get back to you. We can omit the question for now. It’s going to be a long list.
Jacobsen: You went through chaplaincy school. What do you believe in? How does that belief evolve in chaplains-in-training?
Moss: I’ll start with what I thought I believed in. I thought I believed in human aspiration—the idea that humanity has an inherent sense of goodness, and that we need to rise above strife to reach our potential. That was my starting point.
Through the COVID pandemic, through my work in Oklahoma with Phillip Hancock, and through my own introspection, I realized that’s not my belief. It isn’t that lofty, nor do I think potential is something to stake one’s belief in. My belief has become simpler.
I believe that the energy that makes humanity what it is—our exponential power—is connection. That connection can be understood as love, not just platonic or emotional love, but an underlying force that binds humans to one another. Most importantly, it connects us to meaning, and “meaning” can be defined individually. I also believe that there is an inherent human search for meaning and purpose. Finally, I think that same connection—let’s still call it love—ties us to the place we live, Earth.
So it’s a threefold connection: to each other, to the larger ecosystem, and to something greater than ourselves.
Jacobsen: Would you characterize these as choices or as instincts?
Moss: I would characterize them as instincts—fundamental characteristics of the human condition.
Jacobsen: How do you approach this in chaplaincy?
Moss: By showing up. One thing about chaplaincy that reveals itself—in any setting, whether hospital or prison—is that when people are at their most vulnerable, whether facing illness or even execution, there is a profoundly beautiful peeling back of layers. The masks we all wear fall away. When a chaplain enters the room, people are often at their core selves.
In hospitals, especially, vulnerability is heightened. Patients are stripped of dignity in so many ways—from the gown to the bedpans to relying on others for basic needs. You become a distilled version of who you are.
For a chaplain, knowing or expecting this means walking into the room as close to one’s own core self as possible. The result is often a connection. My mentor, the Zen master Trudy, calls it the “E.T. moment,” when fingers touch and a spark ignites. That happens frequently when people are at their most authentic.
That is the essence of chaplaincy: holding that connection, holding space and relationship with someone—what hurts them, what helps them.
What hurts is trying to make it something it’s not. For example, if I were a priest or even an atheist chaplain, and someone dying spoke of seeing their spouse in heaven, it would be harmful for me to counter that by saying, “That doesn’t exist.” The same is true in reverse: if someone is a non-believer or struggling with doubt, and a Catholic priest insists on reciting doctrine, that too is harmful.
What helps, by contrast, is meeting people where they are and holding their story. It took me some time to embrace this because it sometimes runs counter to my own beliefs. But there’s a practice in chaplaincy called “support the denial, support the defence.”
It means simply being with the person and helping co-create the mythology they’re living through. If someone with stage four cancer talks about going to Jamaica for their next vacation, you don’t remind them that it’s unlikely they’ll leave the hospital. You support the defence.
Let’s deal with what’s going on right now. That’s what we want to do, right? Even as truth seekers, we want to live in reality and then work with that reality.
Jacobsen: What are other principles like “support the defence”? I assume that’s short for supporting the defence mechanism—the denial of reality they’re facing.
Moss: Yes, their story. You support whatever is going on for them. Another fundamental skill—chaplaincy 101—is to always listen to the first thing they say. It’s all about listening. There’s an art to reflective listening, where we’re trained to repeat back what someone says. But in particular, we’re taught to cue in on the very first thing they tell you, because that often reveals the real issue.
It could be about the food. It could be about the temperature in the room. It could be about someone not showing up. Whatever it is, that first thread is often what unravels what they’re truly going through in the moment.
Jacobsen: That’s interesting—the ball of yarn is always there. What stands out to you as the strongest threads to pull on?
Moss: With Phil, the man I supported on death row, the first thing he said was about self-defence. Talk about supporting the defence—it was literal. That came with photographs, legal arguments, and the fundamental question of what was true and what wasn’t. That was not easy to navigate.
Usually, though, it’s about someone’s physical state. They want to be well, and they’ll tell you that. So often, the first thread is about their health. However, the one that stands out most is Philip Hancock, and how much he wanted to be perceived by others in a particular way.
Jacobsen: What about when patients talk about more minor things—like the room temperature, a headache, or food they’re looking forward to? What do those signals mean about where they’re at?
Moss: It depends. Sometimes it’s about helplessness. Maybe I can give a clear example. At Bellevue, one of my assignments was the forensic unit, where men from Rikers Island were brought for medical care that couldn’t be provided there.
On my first day, I was nervous as I walked in. It felt like a prison—gates, sally ports, guards. I checked in at the nurse’s station, and they told me no one needed help. So I started making rounds, going door to door.
At the first door I knocked on, there was a man, probably mid-twenties. I was still practicing my introduction, so I said, “Hi, I’m Chaplain Devin, your spiritual advisor.”
I asked him, “Can I offer you a prayer?” I was nervous and awkward, so I added, “I can do a song and dance, children’s parties…” He said, “Yeah, you can pray for my hemorrhoids.”
I was stunned—and laughed. Then he told me he’d had such a bad case of hemorrhoids at Rikers that no one would take him seriously. To get attention, he swallowed a razor blade. That’s why he was now in the hospital.
Pulling on that thread—starting with “hemorrhoids”—revealed a much deeper story. This was a man who had never been listened to in his entire life. The more he was ignored, the more desperate he became. You could trace it back to childhood, to his disbelief in God, in the system, in America itself. Everything, to him, was set against him.
Often, that first story becomes a metaphor for someone’s entire life. In his case, it was.
Jacobsen: Almost like a self-fulfilling prophecy, a meta-narrative.
Moss: Exactly. There’s a wealth of information if you pay attention. Part of the skill is reading the room—almost like being a detective, piecing together the evidence in a scene.
Jacobsen: What about prison conditions themselves? Do you have any comments?
Moss: My comment isn’t about physical conditions so much as the bare minimum it takes to do your job. I was always torn—were people being malicious, or did they not care? Because there’s always an opportunity, regardless of belief, to demonstrate the better part of ourselves.
At Oklahoma State Penitentiary, in particular, there seemed to be a culture of doing the least possible—crossing the bureaucratic line and no more. That alone becomes a slow torture. It’s profoundly dehumanizing.
Phil’s last meal made this clear. For three days, all he talked about was wanting a box of dark meat Kentucky Fried Chicken. It became almost Pavlovian—his salivary glands went just thinking about it.
But the night before his last meal, they didn’t give him what he asked for. Instead, they brought him dry chicken fingers. Their excuse was that bones weren’t allowed. Yet the request had to be written a month in advance. There was plenty of time to find a solution. This was a man about to be executed; the least they could do was meet that request.
That, to me, is the cruellest condition—the banality of doing the bare minimum. Not sadism, not overt violence, just indifference.
Jacobsen: We’re drawing a thin line between the banality of evil and the banality of justice—or maybe the thin line when both are made banal. Where can people listen to your work and read your upcoming book?
Moss: Season three comes out in two weeks. It takes the audience through what a chaplain is and how to provide spiritual care without relying on a specific faith or a belief in God. It’s about spirituality understood as a connection to something higher. My book, Something to Believe, is scheduled for release in fall 2026. It’s a seeker’s guide for finding your big belief.
Jacobsen: Thank you very much for your time today. I appreciate it.
Moss: Thank you.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/14
International metrics indicate abuse patterns of males and females. Sex asymmetries exist in these contexts of violence, whether physical violence, sexual assault, emotional/psychological maltreatment, financial/economic control, or abuse within institutions.
Both men and women can be perpetrators of these forms of abuse. Global research shows significant gender asymmetries in prevalence, in severity, and even in context. Many societies show that men commit a disproportionate amount of severe physical and sexual abuse.
Women’s perpetration tends to occur in different patterns or contexts. 90% of the homicide perpetrators worldwide are male, based on UNODC data. Males commit most of the non-lethal assaults and violent crimes. Males mostly perpetrate physical domestic violence. 1 in 3 women and 1 in 10 men experience physical violence in the United States.
Females suffer more severe injuries and repeated assaults, with most of the intimate partner homicides committed by males. A partner kills 38% of female murder victims compared to 5% of male victims. Males are the majority of the perpetrators of physical aggression in other contexts.
The frequency and lethality of physical abuse skew male. However, this is a false basis for blanket stereotyping of males. Women can and do inflict physical harm. Sexual violence is the most gender-disparate form of abuse. No matter the place in the world. Men perpetrate the majority of sexual assaults and rapes.
The U.S. Department of Justice indicates that nearly 99% of persons who commit rape or sexual assault are male. Women and girls are more often victims of sexual abuse. The World Health Organization reports that 1 in 3 women has been subjected to physical and/or sexual violence in their lifetime.
The male lifetime risk of sexual victimization is lower. In the U.S., ~1 in 14 men report being “made to penetrate” or sexually coerced at some point. Female perpetration of sexual abuse does occur, particularly by authority figures abusing minors. Studies on child sexual abuse indicate 75–90% of offenders are male, while 10–25% are female.
Female offenders tend to target boys. Male offenders tend to target girls. Sexual abuse by women is under-detected due to stereotypes. Therefore, the rates of abuse by females are higher than the known reported estimates. Sexual abuse is a highly gendered crime.
Emotional and psychological abuse are common. Both sexes engage in emotional abuse, psychological manipulation, and verbal harassment at significant rates. In the U.S., 48.4% of women and 48.8% of men report psychological aggression.
These behaviours of abuse include belittling, controlling, insults, intimidation, isolation, threats, and more. Males and females employ these in different ways. Women are as or more likely to engage in verbal aggression than men, including yelling, name-calling, and more.
Males tend to incorporate threats of violence with verbal aggression—a pattern of domination, in the form of a sustained pattern of control. Females tend to engage in relational aggression using social exclusion, guilt-tripping, or emotional manipulation, e.g., belittle their partner’s masculinity or use passive-aggressive tactics.
Financial or economic abuse is controlling a victim’s employment, money, or resources. Males tend to be the perpetrators of financial abuse in patriarchal contexts. An environment in which the male has significant authority over financial decisions in the home. Elder abuse is common among males and females via exploitation of the elderly.
Institutional abuse is maltreatment within systems of care or power. Males and females are perpetrators. In nursing homes and long-term care facilities, two-thirds of staff members admit to committing abuse of older persons in the past year.
Frontline caregivers for elders tend to be women. Women figure prominently and significantly among institutional abusers in elder care. Egregious institutional abuse scandals involve predominantly male perpetrators taking advantage of authority.
Institutional abuse is less about the gender of the perpetrator. It is more about power imbalances. Those in charge, male or female, may abuse vulnerable dependents. Styles of abuse mirror broader gender patterns: male staff tend to be implicated in sexual violence, whereas female staff tend to be implicated in neglect or emotional abuse. Experts emphasize that both women and men can be guilty of severe abuse in institutional settings.
Male perpetrators of violence show more antisocial personality disorder or narcissistic personality. Female perpetrators show more borderline personality traits. Institutional biases and stereotypes can lead to female abusers not being held accountable. Female victims often face disbelief.
The further questions in either case of the significant minorities of females and males who abuse are the impacts, motivations, or patterns.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/14
Michael Brownstein is Professor and Chair of Philosophy at John Jay College, CUNY, and Professor of Philosophy at The Graduate Center, CUNY. He is the author of The Implicit Mind, focusing on implicit bias and moral psychology. His research bridges philosophy, psychology, and social issues, highlighting the implicit processes that shape behaviour.
Alex Madva is Professor of Philosophy at Cal Poly Pomona, where he directs the California Center for Ethics and Policy and co-directs the Digital Humanities Consortium. He coedited An Introduction to Implicit Bias and The Movement for Black Lives. His work examines race, identity, and the ethics of bias.
Daniel Kelly is Professor of Philosophy at Purdue University, where he is also the Director of the Cognition, Agency, and Intelligence Center. His research focuses on issues at the intersection of philosophy of mind and cognitive science, moral theory, and evolution. He is the author of Yuck! The Nature and Moral Significance of Disgust.
This conversation with Brownstein, Madva, and Kelly, moderated by Scott Douglas Jacobsen, about Somebody Should Do Something (MIT Press, 2025) explores the false dichotomy between individual and structural change, arguing that social progress is always the result of interactions between both. The authors highlight historical case studies, such as milk pasteurization and marriage equality, demonstrating how scientific discoveries, community advocacy, and systemic reforms converge to create tipping points. They emphasize the role of narratives, cognitive biases, and emotional responses, such as anger and solidarity, in shaping collective action. From parenting and masculinity to climate change and disinformation, the discussion underscores that change is unpredictable but possible—built through creativity, communication, and integrating personal responsibility with broader institutional reform.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we’re here to discuss the idea that somebody should do something. Why did you draw on social science, history, and case studies to make your argument?
Michael Brownstein: We wanted to write a book that was enjoyable to read. We examined the history of social change—both large movements and individuals who made a difference. We began by searching for compelling stories and organized the book around them.
All three of us conduct academic research at the intersection of philosophy and the social sciences. We tried to use stories to share what the research shows regarding what motivates people to take action, which kinds of action are effective, and what drives collective action.
Alex Madva: The three of us had been collaborating on academic papers for several years. We developed many of our ideas in that context, but few people ever read those papers. We wanted to reach a wider audience. From our own experience, narrative nonfiction is powerful for conveying ideas. We also included 150 pages of notes and references to document our sources (we brought receipts!), but we wanted the text itself to remain readable and engaging.
Daniel Kelly: One of the themes of the book is that it’s easy to fall into two camps when thinking about social change: structural or individual. One of our central messages is that this is a false dichotomy. We should move past it. Many people agree with that in theory, but few have done the hard work of illustrating how structures and individuals interact. We used stories to demonstrate that interaction repeatedly, and then supported them with research to analyze what happened in those stories and highlight the main messages we wanted to convey.
Madva: One thing that’s so valuable about the work you do at the Good Men Project is that you discuss the many different roles men play in their lives—thinking about positive images of masculinity and what positive roles people can take as fathers, employees, employers, and teammates to make a difference for social change. Instead of rejecting or downplaying our social identities, it’s about embracing our identities, including masculinity, in positive ways for social change.
Jacobsen: And to Daniel’s point about the dichotomy—that mythos definitely appears in the Canadian media ecosystem, whether in the narrative of the self-made individual or in the Pollyannish idea of “together we can,” without actionables. The integrative approach is helpful. Why did milk pasteurization and marriage equality hit their tipping points when they did in American history?
Brownstein: I’ll take a stab. It’s easy to look backward and say why things happened the way they did. But hindsight can be misleading. Unless we can run multiple histories and compare them, there’s always the risk of telling a “just-so” story. I don’t think any of us can tell you exactly why, but we can point to some of the factors that made a difference.
For those two stories, both contribute to the integration Dan was talking about—that’s at the heart of the book. The story we were raised with about milk pasteurization was that it was a scientific breakthrough showing the power of scientific inquiry to solve human problems. Louis Pasteur comes along, has a great idea, and then—so the story goes—lots of people are saved.
But the interesting part for us is what happens in between. Pasteur discovered the process of making milk and other drinks safe decades before it became popularized or accepted.
Madva: He invented pasteurization around 1863, but the first US state, Michigan, didn’t require it until 1947.
Brownstein: What happened in that intervening time was the long work of getting people to change their behaviour, change their beliefs, and get comfortable with new practices.
There were all kinds of roles people could play. We originally had a large section of the book dedicated to Nathan Strauss, a philanthropist in New York City who spent decades working to make pasteurized milk available and acceptable. That section was mainly cut for length, but his work illustrated how individuals contributed to systemic social change.
What we saw in that history was the combination of many people doing individual things, connecting with others in their communities, linking with scientific discoveries, and aligning with systemic changes in the economy.
Part of the reason this became such a significant issue is that cities were expanding at the time, while farms were relocating farther away from urban areas. The problem of milk safety was getting worse. That background factor was humming along while people played their roles in implementing change. The interaction of individuals and broader systemic forces comes to the fore in the history of milk pasteurization.
Madva: Part of the issue was that people believed unpasteurized milk contained beneficial bacteria that were good for the gut. That view is still with us today. For example, Goop sells a raw milk cure to cleanse parasites, and the current U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy, is also a big fan of raw milk.
Even when the science was clear, superstition persisted around it. Some people disliked the taste. Distributors were worried. A whole set of social norms and attitudes had to change. People had to start thinking of pasteurized milk as a safe and appealing option.
In some ways, that took time. People had to drink it, get used to the taste, and spread new social norms. There was a complex interaction of individuals playing scientific, marketing, advertising, and everyday roles as consumers discussing pasteurized milk with others. Once we start thinking about the interaction between social norms, attitudes, and laws, that’s a good segue into progress around LGBTQ rights.
Kelly: Marriage inequality because of Will and Grace! (This is a joke.) In actuality, none of these big changes happen because of a single factor. To connect it back to the way you framed it, you asked why these tipping points happened when they did. Michael made the right point to start: even when we know that these tipping points happened, we don’t have counterfactuals in many of these cases to test against and control for one factor versus another to figure out exactly why they happened.
So even in retrospect, when we identify a tipping point, it isn’t easy to parse out the exact combination of factors that pushed something over the edge. That’s a point we emphasize in the book across. This is challenging work, and we need to approach it with epistemic humility, which means not overestimating how much we know.
That humility is especially important when we’re looking forward. Again, we know these kinds of social change tipping points happen. These systems have jumpy dynamics. But when the tipping points are going to be crossed and the jumps are going to happen is incredibly hard to predict in advance.
A lot of the advice we give isn’t predicated on any overarching formula or grand Theory of Change—“if you do this, then that will happen.” Instead, it’s: here are the ingredients that typically go into the stew, but how it will turn out, and when a tipping point or jump will occur, is hard to say. What we know is that we need to keep cooking.
Brownstein: When we were writing the book, we framed the story of marriage equality as a victory for liberal causes. We discussed how individual people and their communities changed their minds and attitudes, while institutions and laws also changed.
But since we wrote the book in 2020–2021, further changes have happened that weren’t predictable at the time. It remains a story of interaction between institutions and individuals—cyclical, back and forth, and nearly impossible to predict.
It’s also important to stress that when we consider the unpredictability of social change, it can be demoralizing. It can make people think, “Why bother? I’ll keep banging away for years, and nothing will happen.”
Madva: The flip side is that change could be right around the corner, and we wouldn’t know it. The action you take today could be part of a tipping point that shifts things in a more positive direction. Framed this way, unpredictability isn’t just discouraging—it can also be seen as an opportunity. The action that feels like it doesn’t matter could, in fact, make all the difference.
Jacobsen: What about the emotional glitches we experience—where once we’ve gained something that feels good, but losing it feels far worse? Losses don’t feel equivalent to gains, emotionally. Emotions drive many of our life’s vectors, both individually and collectively. Can you bring that into the analysis?
Madva: The first thing to say is that we were mindful of this in the book. Although the book primarily focuses on two significant problems—the climate crisis and racism—one of which appears persistent and the other worsening— we attempted to provide a broader perspective.
Focusing only on those issues, it can feel like we’re losing ground, like everything is moving backward. However, looking back over the last 200 years, there has been incredible progress. For the first 300,000 years of human existence, the average human lifespan was approximately 35 years, primarily due to the high mortality rate among children under the age of five. We didn’t yet have innovations like pasteurization.
Since the early 1800s, collective efforts by individuals across all sectors of society have made a significant difference in driving positive social change. That long view is crucial. Even when we are losing in the short term, we may still be part of a larger project that is winning in the long term.
Kelly: In the abstract, your question wasn’t about any particular policy or even instance of social change. It was about the endowment effect.
Jacobsen: Yes. It’s a historical bias that produces negativity. If we perceive losses as more significant than gains, then even minor losses—or an occasional big one—will feel much more severe. That can be demoralizing.
Kelly: The endowment effect, more generally, is an asymmetry: losing something feels worse than gaining the same thing felt good – the negative experiences associated with having to give up something we have tend to be more extreme that the positive feelings we got from getting it in the first place. You’re right that it’s one of many factors that tends to reinforce the status quo.
Social change often requires giving up something familiar from the past, which is often annoying. It’s helpful to recognize the parts of human psychological nature that can resist change. Once we understand them, we can plan strategies to address them.
Brownstein: I’d add briefly that the psychologist Adam Mastroianni has an excellent paper showing how people always think things are getting worse. Even when they acknowledge evident progress, they tend to believe the moral heyday was around when they were 13 years old.
These sorts of cognitive glitches are part of what we discuss throughout the book. They can stymie practical efforts for social change. Another example is anti-incrementalism bias. If people set a threshold of success for a project—whether it’s a company pledge level, weight loss, or any goal—they often judge anything short of that threshold as failure, even if they came close.
Say one team gets 90% of the way but falls short, and another team gets only 40% of the way. People often judge both as total failures. That mindset discourages further effort or motivation.
That applies to marriage equality, pasteurization, or any social change project—when in reality, the vast majority of the time, what you get is step-by-step progress toward a goal. However, if you think all is lost unless you reach the finish line, that mindset undermines your ability to persevere.
As Alex noted, the fact that you don’t know when you’re going to fully “get there” also means you could arrive in the blink of an eye. That’s part of the story.
Jacobsen: For any collective work, what about moral judgment? When should we lean on moral revulsion, and when is it unwise to do so, given the risk of a backfire effect?
Kelly: I wrote a previous book about disgust and how it informs moral judgment. There’s a case to be made—because I made it—that moral revulsion isn’t something we should rely on, even in the fight for social change and morally laudable causes.
Revulsion, rooted in the emotion of disgust, can infiltrate our thinking about social norm violations and members of other social groups. It can lead us to dehumanize other people. That dehumanizing effect can’t be separated from the intense motivational force disgust brings with it. My view is that invoking revulsion is always playing with fire.
Madva: We don’t defend moral revulsion in the book, but we do talk about another salient negative moral emotion: outrage at injustice. This is another area where we try to square the circle. On the one hand, anger is a powerful motivator—it gets people off the couch and into the fight for social change. On the other hand, it is dangerous.
If we want to make lasting positive change, we need to work together with people outside our immediate in-groups and build coalitions. Anger may motivate, but it can also become an obstacle to coalition-building. One of the arguments we present in the book is that we need to adopt an intersectional mindset —a kind of “both/and” thinking.
That means recognizing our specific social identities and roles, while also recognizing the shared common ground that unites us and that we need to fight for together. One of the contexts where we explore this in the book is in relation to call-out culture—when someone, even the President of the United States, says something racist, what is the appropriate response? Should you say, “Let’s all be colorblind, let’s pretend difference doesn’t exist”? Should you focus only on your own social group? Should you call out that person as an individual racist?
The call-out approach can be motivating for your in-group, but it can also backfire. People who don’t see the statement as racist may have a negative backlash against you. One of the social scientists we profile in the book, Ian Haney-López, argues for an intersectional approach where you call out people for being strategically racist.
That way, you are not saying, “I know what’s in this person’s heart,” as though it were a personal failing. Instead, you’re pointing out that they’re trying to divide people along racial lines to keep the one percent in power. The goal is to name racism, but to frame it as something being done strategically for political ends, and then pivot to saying: “This statement threatens to divide us, but we need solutions that work for everybody—universal healthcare, for example.”
Jacobsen: What about the different roles we play? Alex mentioned that one of the frames the Good Men Project has, under Lisa Hickey’s leadership, is the various roles men play in their lives—fathers, workers, managers, baseball coaches, and mentors. How can people lean on relatively standard roles they already inhabit in different domains of their lives to engage in both individual action and collective influence?
Madva: This is a question I’d like to put to Michael, because he’s the father among us, and his middle child is a son. I’m curious how he thinks about engaging with his son around masculinity and taking a both/and approach. Sorry to put you on the spot, but I’m genuinely curious.
Brownstein: It is a live question, because these days my son is into powerlifting and watching TikTok videos of men telling him how to get big and it’s anxiety-producing because I don’t know exactly what messages he’s receiving, and how much of the fitness stuff blends into the more troubling parts of the manosphere. So, the most honest way I can answer Alex’s question is that I try to talk to him—or rather, I try to get him to speak to me.
I share a lot about my own experiences. I remind myself of the vulnerability and insecurity pumping through my blood at fourteen, and I try to be transparent about those feelings. I hope that openness helps.
Another thing he’s clearly being exposed to is political ideas. That’s partly because he’s genuinely interested in politics and history. He’s at an age where he wants to test ideas—even the “wrong” ones. He knows his parents are dyed-in-the-wool progressives, so there’s a bit of an Alex P. Keaton vibe: “What can I get away with here?” Of course, he can get away with anything—he’s free to think whatever he wants.
Both the body-image content and the exploration of controversial political ideas come down, for me as a parent, to maintaining as many open avenues for communication as possible. Building trust so we can explore these ideas together—and potentially be open to changing what we think and feel.
That connects back to what I might have said to your question before Alex put me on the spot: one way we can play a role in social change is simply by being a friend who’s willing to talk about things that matter.
If you’re not an activist or a climate warrior, it can feel uncomfortable—or even awkward—to be earnest about your concerns. But whether it’s climate change or something else, one thing I’ve learned from research and conversations is how far honesty can go. Wearing your concerns, fears, and aspirations—for yourself, your community, and the world—on your sleeve really matters. And there’s evidence for that.
For example, when people in the United States are asked to estimate the percentage of the country that wants more action on climate change, they estimate about a third. In reality, it’s two-thirds. People get it very wrong—that’s called pluralistic ignorance. It allows political elites with different agendas to implement policies that conflict with what most people want.
One thing I can do—as a friend, teacher, or parent—is to discuss why I want those changes and why they matter. That connects directly to the community-building side of integrating individual and social roles for change.
Madva: The last section of our book is titled ‘Happy Warrior.’ We highlight Amy Wrzesniewski’s research on job crafting, which involves reframing one’s work as an opportunity to make a positive difference in people’s lives.
In one study, she profiled hospital cleaning staff. Some perceived their job as dreary, dull, and devoid of meaning. Others, with the same role, found it inspiring and took pride in it. The difference was that in the first case, people just showed up, mopped the floors, and went through the motions.
For the others, they thought about their role in helping patients have the best possible experience. For example, some cleaned the ceilings, considering the perspective of a patient lying in bed looking upward. They asked themselves: “What would my mother, father, sister, or brother feel if they were in this situation?” They wanted patients to be comfortable. They understood their role as supporting patients as part of the hospital’s broader mission. That reframing allowed them to find meaning and purpose in roles that might otherwise seem dreary.
Jacobsen: What has been the most significant critique of either your methodology or your framing? And what is an appropriate response to that critique?
Madva: We can get pretty academic here if you want. So, the three of us are philosophers. We’re not policy wonks. We don’t have a “how-to” manual for changing the world. What we do focus on are the problematic ways people think about and frame these problems.
Sometimes we come across headlines like, ‘I work for the environmental movement.’ I don’t care if you recycle. Or: Stop—going vegan won’t save the climate. Corporate polluters must be held accountable.
When you read those articles, they often make clear what not to do, but they’re much less clear about what to do.
A lot of that commentary comes “below the fold,” and it’s often super vague—something like, go out and vote or be political—but it’s totally unclear what that amounts to. So our reply in the book is: yes, it’s valid to point at structural issues, but we can’t lose sight of the role of the individual. Instead of falling into either/or thinking—either I change as an individual, or we change the system—we argue that we must think about how individuals can change to change the system, and how to redesign social systems so that they empower individuals.
Sometimes, when we make that point, the same person who just made the either/or statement will respond, “Well, of course, I know it’s both/and.” That happens all the time, in conversation and in print. One of the most significant objections we receive is that what we’re saying is obvious.
Here’s the tricky part: we hope we’ve written a clear book that people agree with, but we don’t want it to seem as though it was apparent all along. The mistake people make is thinking about individual action and structural change as two separate good things, each independently contributing to social progress. What we try to explain instead is that they’re fundamentally interconnected.
The same action can be both an individual choice and a structural change. For every structural reform you want, there are roles individuals must play to bring it about. Conversely, for every separate change you make or hope others make, there are structural changes needed to support those. Pinning down this cognitive mistake—misunderstanding how individual and structural dynamics interact—has been one of the biggest challenges.
Brownstein: I could add quickly: another common objection is that people concede that individuals matter, but then say, “At the end of the day, the most important thing is changing the institutions or the systems.” That pushback often comes from political scientists and economists, who study how to design institutions that incentivize individuals to make particular choices.
They’ll point to examples: “If we change this feature of tax policy, we know people will make different decisions. Isn’t that where the real action is, rather than persuading individuals one by one?”
The response is: yes, changing systems, institutions, laws, and policies is crucial. But please tell me how you’re going to do that. The answer invariably involves motivating coalitions, persuading individuals, creating voting blocs, pressuring politicians, and building momentum to enact those changes. And at that point, we’re right back in the reciprocal domain Alex was talking about.
Madva: I laughed when I heard Michael talking about that, because part of what’s funny is that some people respond, “Yes, of course, it’s both/and—everybody knows that.” Others respond by saying but really it’s structural, as Michael explained. But then other people respond by saying but it really comes, “Never doubt that a small group of committed individuals can change the world. Indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has,” a quote attributed to Margaret Mead.
Jacobsen: Let’s make this the standard for every poster and paper recitation at every academic conference. Although the research has its limitations, what are the areas for further questions and research?
Brownstein: Well, we originally intended the book to have three prominent examples: climate change, racism, and political misinformation. I would continue to think more about misinformation and what people can do about it from both/perspectives. We will be presenting at a conference on polarization at MIT in December.
Madva: We also found either/or thinking there, where people would say, “If we want to combat polarization, we have to change political systems.” They’re not thinking enough about how the polarized, misinformed environment in which we live is the one within which we have to start making changes. We must persuade a whole group of individuals to work towards bringing about those social changes. I had won a grant to write the next book on misinformation and belief, but it was cancelled in April. The fight for that is ongoing.
Brownstein: It’s very much a case in point, right? Because you were saying, Dan, that whatever the policy changes are, they need to be created in the misinformed environment we’re living in. And here you are, someone ready to write a book about this problem—except you can’t get the book out there because your NEH grant has been cancelled.
Kelly: Yes. It’s a more extended conversation than this session allows—the media ecosystem, academia, and popular commentary all build together.
Jacobsen: Yes. I’ve been working on some projects as well. I took two trips to Ukraine in 2023 and 2024. I’ve got some conversational book projects with various experts and citizens. The Russian—properly the Kremlin—disinformation campaigns, and the subsequent misinformation that follows from them, are crucial.
Maybe just a side comment: the extreme forms that you might see in war—the way they use video games, the way they use accusations, the way they hire news outlets that are essentially state propaganda—all of that is central.
Madva: That’s a good question. Indeed, it makes sense that in a militaristic context, you need to rally your side, and people need to be rowing together in the same boat. So the impulse to tell lies to get people on board is contextual.
I’m actually working on a project on ethics and leadership with someone else, and I’ve read the book Extreme Ownership. It’s a leadership guide written by two former Navy SEALs.
It was an interesting book. There was a great deal in the influential book, and it even influenced my perspective on my own role as a leader within my institution.
They emphasized personal responsibility, not just for oneself, but for the team as well. They described what it means to be in the middle of a hierarchy: if your boss tells you to do something, you are not being a responsible leader if you pass that order along to your subordinates without understanding the reason behind it. They stressed what they called “leadership up the chain,” where you have to keep pressing upward until you know the why. Then, and only then, can you communicate those reasons clearly to the people you’re leading.
There is a way in which they emphasize the importance of accurate information, even in a militaristic context. They gave examples of friendly fire and other disasters that occur when people follow orders without thinking critically or taking responsibility. The balance they tried to strike was between a tight, transparent chain of command and individual responsibility.
That’s a similar theme when we think about misinformation. Even in a militaristic or legal context, you don’t lose personal responsibility for finding out the truth.
Jacobsen: Any last thoughts? Let’s end with your reflections on Russia and the Kremlin’s use of misinformation and disinformation campaigns in the war, and how those concerns extend from the work presented in the book.
Brownstein: I’ll punt. I don’t have anything specific to say—it’s far outside my area of expertise. I suppose the thought that came to mind, connecting the question back to something we discussed earlier about unpredictability, is this: from what I’ve read about the war in Ukraine, one of the things that’s emerging is human creativity.
This isn’t precisely a misinformation question, but literally a warfighting one—the way Ukrainians have figured out how to fight against a much bigger, stronger enemy with drones and improvisation, for whatever reason, that stuck in my mind as similar to the way Zoran Mamdani in New York City is creatively figuring out how to use TikTok in an election.
So, I suppose that for any problem—even specifically for political misinformation and disinformation from bad actors—what will emerge is creative people devising counter-strategies that we couldn’t have anticipated from our vantage point. That’s what I’m looking for: to see what innovative solutions emerge when people are pressed into a corner.
Jacobsen: Any favourite quotes or chapters before we wrap up?
Brownstein: Well, we lead off at the beginning with a quote from Iris Murdoch. I’ll paraphrase because I can’t get it exactly right: man is the creature that creates pictures of himself and then comes to resemble the picture.
In some ways, that’s the work I see us engaging in—changing the picture of what it means to be a person, and what it means to be a person living in a world beyond our control, yet still wanting to make a difference. If we can change the stories and narratives we use to define ourselves, that’s a significant step toward addressing the problems we see around us.
Jacobsen: Thank you so much for your time today and for an extended session.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/13
Alexis Rockman (b. 1962, New York City) is a leading painter of the Anthropocene, known for richly researched images that reimagine natural history through ecology and genetics. A School of Visual Arts graduate, he combines fieldwork with studio invention, sometimes using soil and organic materials for his “field drawings.” Museum highlights include A Fable for Tomorrow at the Smithsonian American Art Museum. He contributed concept art to Ang Lee’s Life of Pi. Signature projects—Manifest Destiny, The Great Lakes Cycle, and Oceanus—stage dramas of adaptation, collapse, and resilience, marrying scientific attention to detail with a storyteller’s moral sense of consequence and scale.
In this interview with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Alexis Rockman discusses his latest series depicting American cultural icons as ruins, a continuation of his earlier masterpiece Manifest Destiny. Rockman reflects on decades of climate-themed art, from Future Evolution with Peter Ward to public works like The Farm. He critiques symbolic campaigns on climate change, the role of political distraction, and the difficulty of maintaining conviction without the “thread of the familiar.” Blending science fiction traditions with environmental urgency, Rockman situates his work between storytelling and scientific speculation, showing how art can hold tension between the familiar and the apocalyptic.
Interview conducted October 6, 2025, in the morning Pacific Time.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, what’s the latest art piece you’re working on now?
Alexis Rockman: I’m working on images of American icons in ruins. Go figure. It’s something I did about 20 years ago, an offshoot of my painting Manifest Destiny. That painting imagined New York after the ice caps melted—I started it 25 years ago—and it premiered at the Brooklyn Museum.
I plan to show these new works in Aspen next year or the year after. Today I’m working on the Getty Museum as a ruin. Institutions under pressure. Who knew I’d become a documentarian?
As some curators said: Planet of the Apes. I’m—yes—among many other things.
Jacobsen: Some climate news. Recently a super typhoon—I don’t know what “super” adds to it, but apparently it means a bigger typhoon—hit Taiwan and China. There’s been severe weather elsewhere.
Rockman: I’m planning a project in India, speaking of typhoons.
Jacobsen: You mentioned that.
Rockman: I’ve got a list of places I want to go, and I’m applying for grants. I love the different names: hurricane, typhoon, monsoon—wonderful words. Same class of storms, different regions.
Jacobsen: What’s the difference?
Rockman: Geography.
Jacobsen: Which name is more fun? “Typhoon,” because of the “y” and the “-phoon.” Who wouldn’t love to say that over and over? It’s as fun as hearing someone go, “Hey, you guys!” The Goonies.
Also, a tropical storm formed near the Bahamas and Cuba on the 28th and curved away from the U.S. East Coast. Are you almost numb to hearing these stories about climate change?
Rockman: I’m so numb and inured. I wouldn’t say indifferent, but I’m not as up in arms as I used to be.
Jacobsen: Even during Obama’s administration, there were at least symbolic campaigns and public concern about climate change. Is it a fait accompli? Have people given up? Or have the campaigns gone quiet while work continues?
Rockman: I don’t know more than you do, beyond the sense of futility and resignation. Not to say the will is gone, but without strong policies—especially from leading emitters—if not us, who? Perhaps China will step in. I’m no expert anymore.
It was a challenging target under the best of circumstances—almost impossible. Now, future generations will likely look back on roughly 1980–2030 with a frown.
Jacobsen: As Chomsky once put it—before his stroke—this was when the conditions for at least a decent, civilized human life were potentially going away. I was just searching for natural disasters in September this year. Starting in October, I specified climate-related events. Let’s say “weather-related disasters,” since some algorithm somewhere is probably going to edit out the phrase “climate change.”
Western North America heatwave in early September, with reasonably high temperatures. That’s right—the Pacific Northwest. Consistent with a warming trend caused by what’s called an “Omega block.” Heatwaves are among the most poorly distributed laws of nature. South and Southeast Asia had monsoons—your wonderful phrasing there.
Deadly landslides and floods hit India, Nepal, and the broader South Asia region. In Indonesia, there was an early and long wet season. That part isn’t talked about enough. I mean, the extended and contracted seasons, the greater variability—that’s more subtle. Indonesia experiences quite a bit of that. Spain had an extreme summer, raising late-season fire risk.
They had the worst wildfire season in roughly 30 years. Super Typhoon Ragasa was a deadly cyclone affecting the Philippines, Taiwan, South China, and Vietnam. Then there was Typhoon Bo Loi, which killed dozens in the Philippines and Vietnam, with heavy rainfall.
So that’s September. And to your question about October.
Rockman: This is circling the drain. Let’s talk about something more specific.
Jacobsen: Has there been a consistent retraction of funding from the United States government to combat some of these issues?
Rockman: Yes, from what little I know and read, I think there’s been a concerted and systemic effort to undermine anything related to these issues. They’re framed as the “radical left” or “psychotic climate embracers”—or whatever the catchy phrase is from this administration. It’s been a systemic dismantling of the feeble measures that might have started to turn things around slightly.
Jacobsen This is an important point we haven’t talked about. Since Charlie Kirk was killed, he’s become an odd distraction. If you track the interest, it peaked for a few days and then dropped off a cliff. What role do murders of public figures play in scandals?
Rockman: They can be distractions. Who am I to say? But it could even be an inside job.
Rockman: Popular speculation—let’s just say Las Vegas betting establishments—would say anything to steer attention away from the Epstein situation. That appears to be the one thing this administration finds alarming.
Jacobsen: Have you changed your position at any point in your career on freedom of expression, especially in the context of political violence?
Rockman: That’s a third rail in many ways. Am I a fan of being a Nazi? No. Am I a fan of Nazi rallies? Personally, no. Do they have a right to express their revolting point of view? I suppose that’s what America is about, right? That’s what I was taught. As long as you don’t act on it, you can say whatever you want and face the consequences.
However, I don’t see that balance being respected anymore. I mean, the Jimmy Kimmel thing, of course. It’s a fascinating time, let’s put it that way.
Jacobsen: Maybe we live in interesting times. Yes, I guess the North American version of that Chinese aphorism is “we’ll see.”
Rockman: So, God bless South Park. I don’t know if I’ve said this before, but they’re the greatest artists of our generation. They are.
Jacobsen: A piercing light of clarity in moments of confusion.
Rockman: For a lot of people, and with bravery—God bless them. It’s incredible.
Jacobsen: I’m wondering, in your own career, have you ever made pieces that offended people?
Rockman: Unfortunately, I’ve tried as hard as I could several times, and it didn’t go anywhere.
Jacobsen: What do you think that is? Is it because the message isn’t explicit enough?
Rockman: It’s either my fault or art’s fault. Probably both. People have seen disasters, they can imagine future catastrophes. I did a project 18 years ago at the Cincinnati Contemporary Art Museum about a human ancestor, Homo georgicus. I hired a paleontological artist to reconstruct this extinct hominid from 1.8 million years ago, and I posed it like Bernini’s Ecstasy of Saint Teresa—the angel. Then I had my wife pose as a human woman, obviously, in the pose of Saint Teresa. I made a painting hoping it would get the Bible Belt up in arms.
It got a big panning, and then there was a shrug and a yawn.
Jacobsen: You need to get in touch with The Satanic Temple. From my interviews with them, I know it cost them over $100,000 USD—not CAD—for a big bronze statue of Baphomet. They need a semi-truck to ship it in. When state legislatures try to put the Ten Commandments on a courthouse lawn, The Satanic Temple places their statue next to it. Since they are a formally registered religion in the United States, they are permitted on the same grounds. Their point is: “If you allow them, then you must allow us.” Flip side of the coin. Have you done any art along those lines, or has it almost purely been environmental?
Rockman: I did a billboard on Houston and Lafayette Street in 1999 or 2000. I’ve done some public art.
Jacobsen: Have you done any ad commissions?
Rockman: I did an ad for Scotch—Chivas Regal.
Jacobsen: What did they give you in return other than money?
Rockman: A shitload of money. It was worth it. I sold liquor to children (joke). It’s great. That’s among the least bad things happening right now. I thought someone would knock on my door after that, but nothing happened.
Jacobsen: So you’ve had mixed responses, but nothing too dramatic. What words have been thrown around about your work when you’ve tried to make a stir?
Rockman: Nothing. No, I’m not kidding.
Jacobsen: Do you have any regrets with respect to your art?
Rockman: Do I have regrets about what?
Jacobsen: With respect to your art. Not expressing yourself enough in some way? Not taking on a project?
Rockman: I have a couple of career blunders that I regret, but I’m not going to tell you. No—everything else was fine. When I quit smoking, it was a big challenge. I had panic attacks and trouble focusing for two years. That was my least favorite period of my work.
Jacobsen: What about The Farm from 2000 on bio-art ethics?
Rockman: Well, that’s the one that was built as a banner on Lafayette and Houston. It was commissioned by Creative Time, a nonprofit public art organization in New York. It’s probably one of my best-known works, but there was no negativity about it.
Jacobsen: Anything interesting in terms of controversy? For Manifest Destiny in 2004, it was called “Climate Ruin Porn,” might have been New York Magazine.
Rockman: They also said it was a flooded, post-apocalyptic Brooklyn. Climate catastrophe images in museums—admired for urgency and criticized as bleak spectacle. That makes me laugh.
Jacobsen: What about critiques that are tinged with the positive—people calling your work preachy?
Rockman: You got me. I agree with all that.
Jacobsen: That line between science fiction and art has come up in a couple of our conversations.
Rockman: Here, I’ll show you a new painting. I lost my view of my studio—hold on.
Jacobsen: So that looks like the Statue [of Liberty] a little bit from the back end. Looks like a smokestack.
Rockman: No—a Guggenheim.
Jacobsen: The sea levels have definitely risen. There’s less haze in that sunset or sunrise than I would expect. To the book, what was the inspiration there? What was the cue?
Rockman: The cue is: how do you take something that, from my perspective, feels fatigued—these allegories of lost power, et cetera? There’s a tradition that all this stuff comes out of. Obviously, there’s science fiction from Amazing Stories. My friend Jonathan Lethem pointed this out on Instagram, and I’m going to send him a JPEG of this when it’s done.
Of course, Planet of the Apes is the most famous version of that. But even before 1968, there were many examples in the ’40s, ’50s, and early ’60s in science fiction rags—Astounding Stories and so on. He posted some of them. So anyway, I’m working in a tradition where those visions felt distant.
When I was a kid, I didn’t see Planet of the Apes when it first came out in 1968, because I was six and it wasn’t part of the deal. But I did see Beneath the Planet of the Apes. It’s not quite as good as the first one. What’s interesting, though, is that it imagines a whole landscape underground—New York as a ruin beneath the surface. So we all grew up with these images.
Jacobsen: Futurama played on that.
Rockman: Because Matt Groening is about my age.
Jacobsen: These are clichés at this point. How do you find new life in these fatigued genres?
Rockman: That’s what this project is about. When I started this in the late 1990s—taking places and showing what climate change was going to do to them—my first piece was called Central Park. On one side, it showed “Snowball Earth,” the idea that if the Gulf Stream changes direction, it would create a snowball effect: much colder conditions in North America.
That has proven to be untrue according to current models. But the big tipping point is still the possibility of the Gulf Stream collapsing. That conveyor brings warm water up from the Caribbean across the Atlantic to Europe. If it slows or stops, we don’t fully know the consequences.
I put that idea aside for 20 years—from 1996 to 2005 or 2006. But now that we’re facing a climate reality far more dire than I thought possible in 2005, and at the same time a political dynamic that is attacking institutions, it feels irresistible to revisit it.
Jacobsen: The immune system attacking the body.
Rockman: It’s like rheumatoid arthritis. Anyway, you think you’re done with a metaphor, something that seemed distant. Then 20 years later, you realize you’re living in it.
Jacobsen: So is it worth going back into that body of work? The process could be the same, but now the arrival feels real.
Rockman: Back then I was projecting 20 years forward. Now, it’s here. I can’t literally do forest fires at the Getty—it would be too on the nose. More extreme.
Jacobsen: Do you show one typhoon? Two? A “super” typhoon? Do we even know what that means?
Rockman: That’s why the Getty ruin I’m working on is so interesting.
Jacobsen: I know that when I was in Ukraine, at least one hospital I saw had that same ruined look I’m imagining. Now I wonder—where’s the smoke, the haze, in front of the rising or setting sun coming from?
Rockman: We’ve had clear skies. I don’t know. That’s up to you—that’s why it’s called art, Scott. It’s open to interpretation. Scotty Warp Speed.
Jacobsen: That’s right. In high school I was called Scotty. Never Scott. I found one of my old plays from back then—it was called Wile Away Hogwash. It was not half bad, actually. So what has happened to the Getty in your image?
Rockman: I don’t know, man. It’s an image. What do you want from me? A description from the artist? It’s up to you. It’s fucked up.
Jacobsen: When are these going to be released?
Rockman: I have to figure that out. These are for Aspen. I’ve had a long relationship with a gallery in Aspen since 1999. I’ve done eight or nine shows there, and I showed part of that body of work in 2005. We both agreed it would be fun to go back and revisit it.
Jacobsen: What I was getting at earlier is that the process can be the same, but now there’s an “arrival”—in the sense that you were talking about at the start of the conversation: feeling “numb” or “inured” to things. You’ve been doing art that projects forward, but only to a certain point in time. Now we’ve arrived at a period where some of that is happening—and in some areas worse. That same process could still apply, projecting 20 or 30 years forward.
Rockman: Twenty or twenty-five years ago, I co-authored a book called Future Evolution with Peter Ward, a paleontologist and a friend. We both grew up admiring Dougal Dixon’s After Man. We thought it would be fun to do something similar. Not that Dixon’s work isn’t serious, but it is ultimately a fantasy scenario—though logically constructed. We admired it deeply. It came out in 1979.
When I attempted this project, I did the illustrations and he wrote the text—you can still buy it on Amazon—I eventually considered my part of it a failure. I lost the framework of familiarity. You need the tension between something familiar and its extrapolation in order for it to resonate.
Have you seen the Apple TV series Extrapolations?
Jacobsen: No.
Rockman: It takes 10- or 15-year increments and projects what climate change will do to the earth every 15 years.
Well-intentioned and interesting, but it didn’t come out as well as I was hoping. I was talking to them about doing a cycle of posters for each episode, but it didn’t work out—Apple didn’t want to pay.
Jacobsen: That’s quotable: Apple didn’t want to pay.
Rockman: Still, some episodes were compelling. Whale Fall, The Fifth Question, Face of God, Nightbirds, Lola, and my favorite—one about Indian seed banks. Anyway, my point is: when you lose the thread of the familiar, you lose conviction. The unfamiliar alone doesn’t hold. You need the tension of the familiar transformed.
Jacobsen: That’s your feeling now?
Rockman: Yes.
Jacobsen: It could also a product of getting older. Everything’s familiar, and at the same time everything’s unfamiliar. The familiar stays more familiar, and the unfamiliar stays more unfamiliar.
Rockman: My sense is that the work has to function like postcards of the familiar—transformed in one way or another. Let’s pick up that thread next time. By then I’ll have another two paintings started. We can touch on those, too—maybe even throw in some Gen Z phrasing. No cap.
Jacobsen: Thank you.
Rockman: You too.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/13
Irina Tsukerman is a human rights and national security attorney based in New York and Connecticut. She earned her Bachelor of Arts in National and Intercultural Studies and Middle East Studies from Fordham University in 2006, followed by a Juris Doctor from Fordham University School of Law in 2009. She operates a boutique national security law practice. She serves as President of Scarab Rising, Inc., a media and security strategic advisory firm. Additionally, she is the Editor-in-Chief of The Washington Outsider, which focuses on foreign policy, geopolitics, security, and human rights. She is actively involved in several professional organizations, including the American Bar Association’s Energy, Environment, and Science and Technology Sections, where she serves as Program Vice Chair in the Oil and Gas Committee. She is also a member of the New York City Bar Association. She serves on the Middle East and North Africa Affairs Committee and affiliates with the Foreign and Comparative Law Committee.
In this interview with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Tsukerman discuss Hamas’s partial acceptance of Trump’s Gaza plan, highlighting unresolved disputes over disarmament, oversight, and IDF withdrawal. Tsukerman stresses Hamas’s antisemitic stance, propaganda tactics, and declining support in Gaza. The conversation broadens to Human Rights Watch reports on incendiary weapons, raising questions about credibility and enforcement. They also examine Georgia’s October elections amid repression, Moldova’s contrasting trajectory, and Tucker Carlson’s controversial rebranding, including allegations of financial influence. Tsukerman argues that media manipulation, weak enforcement of international law, and political opportunism underscore persistent threats to democratic processes and global security.
Interview conducted on October 3, 2025, in the afternoon Pacific Time.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Now, shifting to our news segment: we are here with Irina Tsukerman to discuss Everywhere Insiders and recent political developments. Our sources today include UN News, Reuters, AP News, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch. Let us begin with an AP report: Hamas has partially accepted President Trump’s Gaza plan, and Trump has told Israel to halt bombing while negotiations proceed. The talks cover governance, humanitarian access, disarmament, and prisoner exchanges. Irina, from an expert angle, where does this stand?
Irina Tsukerman: The headlines oversell the progress. When you examine what Hamas actually accepted and rejected, the picture is less optimistic. Hamas has not agreed to disarm—a central requirement of the plan—and says any disarmament would depend on ending Israel’s occupation. It objects to foreign administration or oversight of Gaza and has raised practical objections to a 72-hour timeline for returning all hostages, noting difficulty locating remains that quickly. It also demands a full, immediate IDF withdrawal, rather than the staged withdrawal envisioned in the plan. In short, Hamas agreed to continue talking and accepted some components, but the most contentious issues remain unresolved.
It is also worth recalling that both Netanyahu and Trump have framed their proposals as “final” offers. Meanwhile, Trump publicly directed Israel to stop bombing to facilitate hostage release and negotiations, even as localized strikes reportedly continued.
Jacobsen: To clarify the diplomatic context: Hamas is designated a terrorist organization by major Western governments—the United States, European Union, Canada, and the United Kingdom—and has faced growing regional censure. The UN General Assembly recently reaffirmed the two-state solution in a vote of roughly 140 nations, which also explicitly condemned Hamas. Several Arab states have echoed calls for Hamas to disarm and cede governance to a technocratic Palestinian body.
Given those facts, is a fair characterization is that Hamas’s stance is both anti-Israel and antisemitic?
Tsukerman: It strategically links those positions. The current “partial acceptance” keeps negotiations alive but does not bridge the central gaps—disarmament, oversight and governance, and withdrawal sequencing. They link the two issues directly. So Hamas has essentially come out and openly stated that they hate Jews and they hate Israel.
It is no longer disguised or couched in careful language. They have essentially admitted that anti-Zionism and antisemitism are linked, and they are not making the rare distinction anymore. They have declared that they hate the State of Israel, everyone who lives there, and Jewish communities worldwide. They want them all gone.
Jacobsen: So to be clear, the overall assessment is that Hamas is anti-Zionist, anti-Israel, and antisemitic. They are labeled a terrorist group and sanctioned by numerous global actors, and they are increasingly isolated—even from those who once could have been allies.
Tsukerman: Their popularity has declined even in Gaza. That does not mean Gazans have let go of their deep hostility toward Israel, but they are holding Hamas accountable for dragging them into a disastrous war, mismanaging the economy, torturing critics, and publicly executing people accused of collaborating with Israel without trial. These abuses have been documented in recent weeks.
Nevertheless, Hamas continues to hold on to power, rejecting proposals supported by the United States, Israel, and regional powers including Saudi Arabia and Egypt—even though Egypt had hoped to promote its own version of a peace plan. For Hamas, every rejection and delay is strategic. They view Trump’s public statements, such as his order to pause bombing, as victories. Any pause in fighting becomes propaganda: proof, in their narrative, that Israel is weak and susceptible to pressure.
In reality, this is a propaganda victory rather than a military one. Based on the available information, I believe Trump did not receive the full details of Hamas’s response. If he had, he might have been far less celebratory and more skeptical of Hamas’s intentions. A deeper issue here is his administration’s close security and financial relationship with Qatar, which has emboldened Hamas to continue its strategy of delay and manipulation.
Jacobsen: Outside of that, Human Rights Watch has urged states to move beyond the weak provisions of Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) and pursue stronger international rules on incendiary weapons, even suggesting a full ban. This follows reports of their recent use in South Sudan. Human Rights Watch has also reported on incendiary weapons, including alleged uses of white phosphorus. Any thoughts?
Tsukerman: At the end of the day, Human Rights Watch has no enforcement mechanisms. Their reports are important for raising awareness, but the organization cannot hold countries accountable when they violate international law. Any law—new, old, or refined—is only as strong as the willingness of states to enforce it. When parties to conflicts ignore agreements, the law itself cannot stop them.
The only way to stop such actors is often overwhelming force, which may require serious weaponry. Some of the examples cited in the Human Rights Watch report are dubious, poorly documented, or based on biased sources. The problem with some of these investigations is that they rely heavily on secondhand narratives, which are impossible to independently verify. That means you are left taking the organization at its word, and its credibility has been compromised in the past.
Human Rights Watch has, on multiple occasions, been accused of fabricating or misreporting incidents. That makes it difficult to distinguish between genuine eyewitness testimony of atrocities and politically convenient narratives. This undermines the credibility of their work. To be clear, incendiary weapons are horrific and destructive, but questionable methodology harms the cause. If the examples cannot be trusted, the scope of the problem is harder to grasp, which reduces the likelihood of effective action.
Jacobsen: Moving to Georgia, international monitors have warned that the October 4 local elections are taking place amid severe reprisals against opposition activists and media. This echoes Associated Press coverage of a sweeping crackdown. Any further thoughts on the Georgia situation?
Tsukerman: We are seeing a troubling trend. On the one hand, Russia continues to interfere in elections. On the other, people are beginning to push back. Moldova is an encouraging example: despite facing many of the same challenges as Georgia, Moldovans chose a different path, likely influenced by Georgia’s struggles.
Unfortunately, in Georgia there is little reason to expect a radically different outcome in the near future. The opposition lacks a clear vision beyond simply being anti-Russian. They also remain closely tied to Mikhail Saakashvili. To be clear, he does not deserve to languish in prison or be subjected to mistreatment, but his legacy is complicated. While in power, he was accused of anti-democratic measures. His decision to return to Georgia was reckless.
Because no new credible leader has emerged to present a different vision, the opposition remains hampered by association with Saakashvili and his successors. This gives the ruling Georgian Dream coalition far more strength than it might otherwise have.
Jacobsen: Shifting to Carlson: Tucker Carlson, a former Fox News anchor, has rebranded as an independent and drawn attention with high-profile interviews, including with Vladimir Putin. He interviewed the Emir of Qatar and appeared to receive financing and pre-written talking points.
Tsukerman: Yes.
Jacobsen: If he claims the mantle of journalism, that is an obvious violation of the Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics—unless disclosed transparently. To my knowledge, he did not disclose such arrangements.
Tsukerman: His explanation is that payments went to his business venture, not to him personally. But since he owns the business, this is a distinction without a difference. It is nonsense. It strongly suggests he may have had similar arrangements with other parties as well. Carlson has interviewed figures like Vladimir Putin, Alexander Dugin, and others of that sort.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Irina.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/12
On UN Watch:
“The most important organization continually bringing to light the record of the UNHRC and UNGA.”
~Robert L. Bernstein, Founding Chair, Human Rights Watch
“…a Geneva-based pro-Israeli monitor.”
The Economist
“UN Watch will not be getting a cheque from me.”
~Ian Williams (The Guardian)
UN Watch ED Claims:
Hillel Neuer, Executive Director of UN Watch, on Sky News, claimed, about the veracity of famine or not in Gaza, the following:
“No, this is a fabricated report… there is not famine.”
“There are objective measures… in this report, it was… politically motivated, to fabricate a finding of famine.”
“This report was not made in good faith.”
“These are Hamas claims laundered by a U.N.-backed report.”
These raise specific factual questions. Is there a famine in Gaza? Was the report objective? Was the report made in good faith? Are these Hamas-influenced or independent UN reportage? Further, is there external support for Mr. Neuer’s position or for the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (a UN-backed multi-agency system for classifying levels of food insecurity) or IPC findings?
The IPC Findings
The IPC report confirmed famine in the Gaza Governorate as of August 15, 2025. By late September 2025, they expected famine conditions to spread to Deir al-Balah and Khan Younis.
Over half a million people in the Gaza Strip were stated as facing Catastrophe (IPC Phase 5), 1.07 million were in Emergency (IPC Phase 4), and 396,000 were in Crisis (IPC Phase 3). Numbers were projected to increase by the end of September.
Child and maternal malnutrition through June 2026 were projected to be about 132,000 children under five suffering from acute malnutrition, with approximately 41,000 suffering severely. About 55,500 pregnant and breastfeeding women will need urgent nutrition support.
IPC assessment found non-trauma mortality in the Gaza Governorate reached famine levels. Conditions in North Gaza are likely severe or worse. Insufficient data prevented proper classification in that case. Rafah was not analyzed because of depopulation. Totals may be underestimates.
Known factors contributing to the famine include escalating conflict and displacement, the collapse of humanitarian food deliveries from March to April, the decline in local food production, aid interceptions, and high food prices.
Water and sanitation conditions are worsening, disease outbreaks are concurrent, and monitoring systems are collapsing, indicating possible underreportage of non-trauma deaths. IPC urged immediate, large-scale, unobstructed multi-sector aid and an immediate ceasefire.
The Current Conclusion
In sum, Neuer declines these claims on the fundamentals: “There is no famine.” Is IPC isolated, or is Neuer isolated in the international community?
The World Health Organization supports the IPC findings. The United Nations Children’s Fund supports the IPC findings. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations supports the findings. The World Food Programme supports the findings.
Furthermore, the International Rescue Committee, the Red Cross Movement, The Lancet, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, Médecins Sans Frontières, the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, the Famine Early Warning Systems Network, and the British Red Cross concur with the report.
The only formal rebuttal is the Government of Israel. No other support exists for Neuer’s assertions.
Therefore, the opposite is likely the case. There is a famine, as evidenced by objective measures and independent UN analysis, based on good faith. Neuer denies the facts and objective measures, is probably politically motivated, and is potentially not working in good faith, dependent on a single supportive claim: the Government of Israel.
By accusing the IPC of fabrication, politicization, and bad faith, Neuer describes the qualities apparent in his own denial. His rejection is not corroborated by independent evidence or credible institutions. He is isolated internationally on this, not because of anti-Israeli bias, but because Neuer is wrong.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/12
Anton Zelinskyi is a Ukrainian legal-reform advocate and Advocacy Manager at the DEJURE Foundation, focusing on judicial transparency, integrity vetting, and EU-aligned standards. As a member of the Public Integrity Council, he helps evaluate candidates for judicial positions and judges undergoing qualification assessment conducted by the HQCJ. His work centers on advancing merit-based selection, ensuring disciplinary accountability, and preventing political capture. Zelinskyi argues reform momentum depends on conditionality from the EU and U.S., especially after international experts’ participation in HQCJ selection ended in 2025. He also highlights wartime windows that enable modernization for survival, reconstruction, and democratic consolidation through the rule of law.
In this interview with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Zelinskyi emphasizes the fragility of Ukraine’s judicial reforms. As a member of the Public Integrity Council, he stresses that EU conditionality and international expert involvement remain vital for merit-based selection, integrity vetting, and accountability. Zelinskyi highlights the Supreme Court as the greatest vulnerability, capable of undermining HCJ and HQCJ progress. He warns that without external pressure, reform momentum stalls, enabling capture by entrenched interests. Digitalization, disciplinary enforcement, and civil society oversight provide resilience, but sustained international participation in key commissions is essential for Ukraine’s rule-of-law commitments and EU accession trajectory.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Which specific EU accession benchmarks shape judicial reform incentives in Ukraine?
Anton Zelinskyi: In June 2022 the EU set seven steps for Ukraine; the first two have shaped judicial reform: (1) adopt a merit- and integrity-based procedure for selecting Constitutional Court judges; (2) complete integrity vetting of the HCJ and re-establish the HQCJ. By 2025, several CCU appointments have been made through transparent, merit-based procedures, and both the HQCJ and HCJ have been independently formed and are demonstrating tangible progress (thanks in large part to the involvement of international experts, including their casting vote). Yet one major gap remains: the Supreme Court has not been meaningfully reformed and can effectively overturn decisions of the HCJ or HQCJ. A clean-up and new selection to the Supreme Court via a commission with international experts is pivotal to consolidating the entire reform.
Jacobsen: If external pressure eased, which reform tracks would stall first, e.g., integrity vetting, or disciplinary enforcement?
Zelinskyi: We have the opportunity to see it in real life. In January 2025 the U.S. administration changed its policy regarding judicial and other reforms in Ukraine. The Supreme Court started to produce detrimental decisions with ease, overruling HCJ and HQCJ decisions. It appears that the selection of Supreme Court judges to the Grand Chamber is driven by notoriety from corruption scandals in the media — the more noise, the better. By law, HCJ and HQCJ must consider and align their work with Supreme Court decisions, so these rulings quickly cascade across vetting and competitions.
The majority of MPs have never been interested in reforms that would diminish the influence of parliament or government over the judiciary. A vivid example of how things can go wrong was the adoption of the law cancelling the independence of NABU and SAPO. If international partners lose interest in Ukraine’s judicial reform, it will stall step by step in a chaotic manner.
Jacobsen: What are the practical consequences of ending international experts’ involvement in HQCJ selection?
Zelinskyi: Under the current law, unreformed legal communities nominate members to the Selection Commission that screens candidates for the HQCJ. That process is already underway, and we can clearly see nominees from unreformed institutions who are on the opposite brink of integrity. If international experts are not brought into this Selection Commission (with real decision power), the HQCJ’s new composition will be defined by a captured, crooked commission. Practically, that means an HQCJ that proceeds to staff the judiciary with hundreds of compromised or politically loyal judges who will remain in the system for decades.
Jacobsen: How should the new Selection Commission for HQCJ be designed to prevent capture?
Zelinskyi: Don’t break what works. The Selection Commission with international experts has shown excellent results. We should keep the same mechanism and extend its mandate for a longer period — until Ukrainian nominating institutions no longer raise questions about their delegates.
Jacobsen: What joint HQCJ–PIC low-integrity indicators reliably predict future misconduct?
Zelinskyi: We cannot truly predict future misconduct. There was even a case when a judge passed qualification assessment successfully and only a month later was caught taking a bribe. No mechanism can uncover every hidden risk. What the HQCJ and PIC try to do instead is identify low-integrity indicators that strongly suggest a judge should not be allowed to continue dispensing justice. These include things like unexplained wealth and assets, tax inconsistencies, family ties and conflicts of interest, repeated violations of procedural deadlines, questionable decisions that benefited powerful actors, or a pattern of ignoring anti-corruption rules. Such red flags don’t guarantee misconduct tomorrow, but they are clear warnings that a person’s past conduct is incompatible with the standards of an independent judiciary. Our task is to remove from the system those whose record already “screams” that they cannot be trusted to make fair and impartial decisions.
Jacobsen: What lessons did reformers draw from the 2024 Supreme Court ruling allowing 180 judges to skip full qualification assessment?
Zelinskyi: As experts in judicial reform, we had a clear idea of what went wrong with the selection to the Supreme Court in 2017–2019. But until this ruling, there was no general recognition that the Supreme Court itself posed such a high risk to judicial reform. Ironically, after the President of the Supreme Court Kniaziev was caught with a record-breaking $2.7 million bribe for himself and other judges, the new leadership quietly but steadily began producing detrimental decisions that broke with the Court’s established practice. The more the composition of the Grand Chamber changed, the more drastic blows to the reform followed.
The pinnacle of this trend was the notorious decision allowing 180 judges to skip the qualification assessment. Importantly, these were not ordinary judges, but those who had previously been banned by the PIC. At that moment came the epiphany: all the progress achieved in eight years could be undone in a single stroke by an unreformed Supreme Court.
Jacobsen: Where are integrity checks most vulnerable?
Zelinskyi: Funny enough, we did a lot to make integrity checks work, and today most judges and judicial candidates are being fairly assessed. But the biggest vulnerability lies with the Supreme Court, which is effectively breaking many of these achievements. On paper, it cannot directly overrule HCJ or HQCJ decisions, yet in practice it acts as the highest judicial body and does whatever it wants
Jacobsen: How can the Ethics Council’s model for HCJ vetting be strengthened?
Zelinskyi: The Ethics Council’s model for vetting members of the HCJ actually works quite well. Of course, there are imperfections, but they are not critical at this stage. The key point is that the HCJ itself is functioning effectively, which shows that the Ethics Council model is also delivering. Instead of trying to re-engineer the mechanism, the priority should be to preserve what already works, maintain international expert involvement with a decisive role.
Jacobsen: Which disciplinary mechanisms have proven genuinely deterrent?
Zelinskyi: The most genuinely deterrent mechanism is when judges clearly understand that it is impossible to “make a deal” with officials to guarantee the outcome of a selection, vetting, or disciplinary procedure. In such circumstances, they begin to follow the rules and respect the red lines set by the HCJ and HQCJ. In practice, the consistent application of these rules by both bodies has already changed the day-to-day behavior of judges and judicial candidates, showing that predictability and inevitability of consequences are the strongest deterrents.
Both the HCJ and HQCJ have shown that they are not afraid to issue negative decisions, even against the most notorious judges — perhaps the clearest example being Pavlo Vovk. When judges see that someone as influential as Vovk could not “make a deal” to avoid consequences, they understand that their own chances are close to zero. This sends a powerful message: the disciplinary and vetting mechanisms actually work, and no reputation or connections can shield a judge from accountability.
Jacobsen: How should wartime exigencies be balanced with due-process rights?
Zelinskyi: I don’t see cases where judges were unlawfully removed from office or imprisoned without due process. On the contrary, even Kniazev (caught with a record-breaking bribe) still attends hearings in the High Anti-Corruption Court and enjoys the privilege of conducting his own business outside of them. When it comes to ordinary people, wartime undoubtedly brings challenges for everyone, but I’m not an expert in this broader field. The only thing I can say with certainty is that the balance must be maintained between the needs of war and the protection of basic human rights.
Jacobsen: Where has court digitalization measurably improved transparency?
Zelinskyi: As a general rule, the more processes are digitalized and the less discretion left to individual officials, the more transparent the system becomes, and the less room there is for corruption. Ukraine is no exception. Digitalization of the courts has already had a measurable impact: the automatic case distribution system, online publication of court decisions, and the electronic judiciary system (ЄСІТС) all make it far harder to manipulate outcomes behind closed doors.
I would say that Ukraine’s level of court digitalization is already comparable to many developed countries, with online access to cases and documents being a strong transparency driver. Of course, the system still requires polishing, both in terms of technical reliability and user-friendliness, but the core principle has been proven: digital tools reduce hidden discretion and increase predictability, which in turn enhances public trust.
Jacobsen: What role should civil society play in year-three-plus oversight fatigue?
Zelinskyi: Fatigue cannot serve as an excuse for lowering standards, even after more than three years of war. The reality is a million times harder on the frontline than in Kyiv, and that perspective matters. Civil society must keep working at full capacity to win the internal fight against corruption and unfair practices.
This means sustaining public oversight of judicial and political institutions, documenting abuses, and pushing for accountability even when international attention shifts. Civil society also has the role of keeping reform momentum alive: reminding both the authorities and the public that integrity is part of resilience, and that victory is not only about holding the frontline but also about ensuring fair governance at home.
Jacobsen: How do anti-corruption agency governance debates interact with judicial reform credibility?
Zelinskyi: Independent anti-corruption agencies are essential allies of civil society, because we share the same enemy — corruption in all its forms. Their work directly reinforces judicial reform credibility: many judges have been dismissed or blocked based on case files and evidence provided by NABU and SAPO. Even if criminal trials take years, the documentation collected by these bodies enables the HQCJ and HCJ to remove corrupt judges or candidates much sooner through qualification or disciplinary procedures.
This creates a single mechanism where civil society, the vetting bodies, and anti-corruption agencies act as interlinked gears. If the independence of NABU or SAPO is weakened, the whole system suffers. In short, debates over anti-corruption agency governance are not isolated, they strike at the very heart of whether Ukraine’s judicial reform is seen as real or cosmetic.
Jacobsen: Which reforms are foundational for negotiating the rule-of-law chapters (23/24)?
Zelinskyi: We believe that the following key things must be assured:
- Cleansing and selection of integrity judges to the Supreme Court as the highest judicial institution, with meaningful involvement of international experts.
- Preservation of international experts in selection commissions, especially in the Selection Commission for the HQCJ, until Ukraine’s EU accession.
- Appointment of the selected candidates to the Constitutional Court to ensure its full and legitimate functioning.
- Guaranteed independence of anti-corruption agencies such as NABU and SAPO.
Jacobsen: What concrete milestones should Ukraine hit by mid-2026?
Zelinskyi: By mid-2026, Ukraine should achieve the following concrete milestones:
- Adopt the law on cleansing and selection of judges to the Supreme Court with meaningful involvement of international experts.
- Appoint at least three additional judges to the Constitutional Court to ensure its full and legitimate functioning.
- Adopt laws extending the participation of international experts with a casting vote in the Selection Commission for the HQCJ and similar bodies, securing this mechanism for at least three more years.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Anton.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/11
Justin Hammond is the owner of Let’s Get Moving!, a NASMM-accredited senior move management company based in Tennessee. With a bachelor’s and master’s degree in social work, both with a focus in gerontology, Hammond combines professional training with an entrepreneurial spirit. After entering the moving and downsizing industry at 27, he has grown a team of 15 dedicated staff who specialize in helping seniors and families navigate major life transitions. His company emphasizes trust, emotional care, and precision—whether downsizing a lifetime’s worth of belongings or supporting clients through stressful moves. Hammond’s mission: treat every customer like family.
In this interview with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Hammond shares how his background in social work and gerontology shaped his approach to senior move management. Hammond explains how accreditation through NASMM (National Association of Senior & Specialty Move Managers) sets his company apart, ensuring ethical and reliable service. He discusses the emotional challenges of downsizing, from letting go of possessions to managing family expectations, and highlights the importance of empathy, organization, and trust. Hammond also reflects on lessons learned in liability and packing expertise, emphasizing his team’s role in turning difficult life transitions into manageable milestones.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today we’re here with Justin Hammond to talk about Let’s Get Moving. Justin, you have a background in social work and a mission at Let’s Get Moving. How does your social work background shape the mission of the company?
Justin Hammond: My background is in social work, with a focus on gerontology in both my bachelor’s and master’s degrees. That background has been tremendously valuable in my work with Let’s Get Moving. Since we’re in the downsizing industry, we work a lot with seniors and the emotions that come with a lifetime’s collection of possessions.
Jacobsen: Senior relocation is going to be an increasing issue in the United States, primarily due to the aging population. This will also be true in many other parts of the world, particularly in the West and some regions of East Asia. How do you differentiate yourself from other senior relocation and move management services?
Hammond: What sets us apart is our accreditation and involvement with NASMM—the National Association of Senior & Specialty Move Managers—which is the leading membership organization for move managers. NASMM was founded in 2002 and has over 1,000 member companies across the U.S., Canada, and beyond. Let’s Get Moving! is NASMM-accredited and listed in their directory; our company was founded in 2005 and has maintained its standing, with our current listing showing a join date of 2008. These standards—ethics, education, and peer accountability—help make our process safer and more reliable for seniors and their families.
Jacobsen: What about supporting families going through significant life transitions or larger milestones?
Hammond: Any downsizing move is a big move, and we try to take into account the many years of collections that have accumulated. Often, sons and daughters aren’t interested in these collections, which can be hurtful to the parent we’re working with. The children may already have full homes and don’t want or need the possessions their parents worked hard to collect and pay for over the years. That can be one of the most challenging aspects—helping people let go and deal with the emotions tied to their belongings. It’s been an enormous learning process for me and for our clients. Most people only go through one major downsize in their lives, so it’s not something you get to practice ahead of time. When it happens, it happens live.
Jacobsen: With so many emotions involved, how do you navigate those challenging moments during the process of moving and downsizing?
Hammond: I have to give a lot of credit to my team. We have about 15 staff members, including four project managers, with the rest focused on operations and packing. They do a fantastic job of being patient with our clients. They’re passionate about working with seniors and approach the process with great care. The way we handle difficult emotions is by being strategic—working room by room, sometimes even drawer by drawer. We rely on checklists, colour coding, and other systems to keep clients organized so they don’t feel overwhelmed. Downsizing from a large home into 1,200 square feet—or sometimes less if it’s assisted living—is daunting. By breaking it into manageable steps, we make it easier for our clients. This helps reduce emotional stress as much as possible. Moving is never easy, but our process makes it more manageable and less overwhelming.
Jacobsen: America is a very diverse country. How do you work alongside such a wide range of clientele—whether it’s cultural, generational, or even just differences in temperament? Some people are easy to work with, while others are more difficult.
Hammond: Sure. As far as age ranges, we have clients across the spectrum. Even though our business is focused on seniors and downsizing, we do encounter some clients in their 40s and 50s who are ready to downsize. Professionally, they’re often at a point where their careers are taking off, and they want less to manage in their personal lives. We see a wide range, from people in their 40s and 50s all the way up to those in their 80s and 90s. As far as temperament goes, we work with all kinds of personality types, and our team reflects that variety too. That’s something we take into account in the initial meeting. We evaluate whether a team member will be a good personality fit with the client and whether the relationship will mesh well during the emotional process of downsizing. The items we handle are deeply personal, and it’s an intimate space—working in kitchens, bedrooms, closets, and attics filled with memories. We have to make sure those personalities align. Sometimes, if a situation becomes particularly difficult or emotionally taxing, we’ll rotate team members out and bring in someone new. That change of pace often helps clients and staff alike.
Jacobsen: Particularly in the summer, we see a rise in natural disasters—fires, hurricanes, and floods. In those cases, people may be forced into impromptu transitions because their homes are damaged or destroyed. Do you ever find your work intersecting with those situations, where your skills and sensitivity are especially needed?
Hammond: Not often. We don’t typically do remediation or emergency recovery work. In Tennessee, the natural disasters we usually face are tornadoes or flooding, which generally result in the total loss of personal property. In those cases, there’s not much we can do directly. However, we do step in for smaller-scale emergencies. For example, if a refrigerator water line bursts and damages the kitchen, we’ll pack out the kitchen, organize everything so repairs can happen, and then put everything back once the work is done. That way, the family can continue their lives with as little disruption as possible. While we don’t typically handle total-loss situations, we do assist families in select case-by-case scenarios where organization and care are required.
Jacobsen: When it comes to your entrepreneurial journey—especially given your social work background—you’ve mentioned that you and your team have learned a lot along the way. What have been the biggest lessons for you personally, and how have you used them to grow the company and strengthen your team?
Hammond: There’s a lot in that question, so I’ll try to cover it all. I would say the most significant learning curve has been realizing how many liabilities exist in the moving world—for the client, for the moving company, and for our team. Moving personal property is a serious responsibility. That has been a primary learning process for us: ensuring clients are protected and properly advised. We’ve turned that challenge into an opportunity by becoming experts ourselves and ensuring clients know that whenever personal property is moved, it has to be protected at the correct dollar value. Many of our high-end clients are collectors of fine art or high-value furniture, and a single truckload can be extremely valuable. We have to make sure their goods are adequately insured before the move takes place in case of unexpected damage. That’s been a massive part of our growth—continuing to refine our knowledge of insurance and liability so we can educate clients effectively. As for our team, we position ourselves as packing experts. Clients often comment, “Wow, that’s a lot of packing paper and bubble wrap,” when they unpack items we’ve packed. But that’s because things were filled correctly. People often underestimate the amount of material required for a safe move. When clients pack themselves, they usually don’t use enough, and that’s when breakage occurs. Our team is trained to use the right amount—even if it’s one more sheet of paper or one more layer of bubble wrap. It’s always better to overpack than to risk damage. Clients are far more forgiving about excess materials than they would be if something broke.
Jacobsen: What happens when people attempt to move on their own without professional expertise? That’s a necessary follow-up.
Hammond: Not every client is right for what we do, and there are certainly opportunities to save money by doing it yourself. Some people want to be DIY movers, and they accept the risks that come with it. You really have to decide which camp you fall into: Are you a DIYer who wants to save money but is willing to take on the risk? Or are you the type of client who wants the protection and expertise of professionals, even if it costs more? For those who go the DIY route, one of the biggest mistakes is underestimating the scope of the project. Moving always takes longer than expected. It’s not a small feat—it’s physically demanding, time-consuming, and exhausting. People often realize too late that they bit off more than they could chew.
Jacobsen: What’s the most disastrous story you’ve heard where a DIY move went completely wrong because someone overestimated their ability to pull it off?
Hammond: Here’s a perfect example—and fortunately, this wasn’t one of our clients. I heard about it from a building that usually refers clients to us. In a brand-new high-rise apartment complex in a nice part of Nashville, someone moving in accidentally hit a sprinkler head while carrying in a large piece of furniture. They couldn’t get the water turned off quickly enough, and it flooded 12 floors down. The damage exceeded a million dollars, and it triggered insurance battles and endless headaches. Something that seems minor—like bumping a wall or scraping a surface—can escalate quickly. In this case, one wrong move caused catastrophic damage, the kind of nightmare nobody wants to face.
Jacobsen: You became an entrepreneur at 27. What has been the most fulfilling part of this journey for you?
Hammond: Every day is different, and that’s been very fulfilling. On a deeper level, everyone has a desire to feel helpful and valuable. For me, it’s gratifying when families ask for help with a project that feels overwhelming to them, or when seniors cannot do the move themselves—whether for health reasons or just because, after 85 years of living, their bodies can’t handle that kind of physical work anymore. Being able to step in, provide a quality service, and take care of them is deeply satisfying. The gratitude from clients makes the job worthwhile.
Jacobsen: Do you have any favourite quotes about moving or life transitions?
Hammond: I’m not really a quote person, so pulling one off the top of my head is tough. But within our team, we often say we try to turn lemons into lemonade. It’s become a daily practice for us. Things will always come up, challenges will always happen—it’s about how we handle them and solve the problems. Problem-solving is what we do every day, and keeping a positive attitude is key. Turning lemons into lemonade has been essential for our team.
Jacobsen: Excellent. Justin, thank you very much for your time today. I appreciate you sharing your expertise. It was great to meet you. I’ll be in touch with your media contact once I’ve drafted the piece. This interview is earmarked for The Good Men Project as a first submission. If it doesn’t run there, I’ll submit it to other publications I have access to—and I also have my own outlet. So either way, your time won’t be wasted. It’s just a matter of where and which audience it reaches.
Hammond: That sounds great.
Jacobsen: Excellent. Thanks so much, Justin. Bye.
Hammond: I appreciate it. Thank you.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/10
Charles Karel Bouley, professionally known as Karel Bouley, is a trailblazing LGBTQ broadcaster, entertainer, and activist. As half of the first openly gay duo in U.S. drive-time radio, he made history while shaping California law on LGBTQ wrongful death cases. Karel rose to prominence as the #1 talk show host on KFI AM 640 in Los Angeles and KGO AM 810 in San Francisco, later expanding to Free Speech TV and the Karel Cast podcast. His work spans journalism (HuffPost, The Advocate, Billboard), television (CNN, MSNBC), and the music industry. A voting member of NARAS, GALECA, and SAG-AFTRA, Karel now lives and creates in Las Vegas.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Bouley discuss platform “algorithmic silencing” of LGBTQ content, citing Meta and YouTube policies, Musk’s anti-Netflix campaign, and the chilling effect on creators. They link the firing of an FBI employee over a Pride flag to broader anti-DEI politics, warn of renewed closet pressures in the U.S. military, and note divergent global trends: Slovakia’s anti-trans measures versus Japan’s court wins removing surgical requirements for legal gender change. U.S. census analysis shows strong same-sex couple presence despite backlash. They argue durable progress hinges on courts and economic leverage, urging organized advocacy, alternative platforms, and cross-border solidarity.
Interview conducted October 3, 2025, in the morning Pacific Time.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: All right, once again, we’re here with This Gay Week with Karel Bouley. Thank you very much for joining me.
Karel Bouley: No worries.
Jacobsen: The first item today is the Bay Area Reporter editorial. It argues that Instagram is routinely flagging or down-ranking LGBTQ content under vague rules about “sexual solicitation.” There have been recent takedowns—what the editorial board calls “algorithmic silencing.”
Bouley: That’s especially jarring given Instagram’s tendency to boost posts that show more skin, yet it’s labelling LGBTQ posts as solicitation. The B.A.R. also reported multiple queer creators saying their accounts were restricted or even deleted under “sexually suggestive” or solicitation rules.
This is an alarming trend, and it’s not just Instagram—it spans Meta’s platforms (Instagram, Facebook, Threads, and WhatsApp). Critics describe it as algorithmic discrimination against LGBTQ expression.
To be precise about politics and money: Meta (the company) donated $1 million to Donald Trump’s 2025 inauguration committee; that’s different from Mark Zuckerberg personally donating. The broader perception of cozying up to power is fueling concern, but the donation on record is corporate.
It’s not only Meta. YouTube has also drawn criticism from GLAAD’s Social Media Safety Index for rolling back or failing to protect gender identity in its policies clearly. LGBTQ creators have long documented visibility problems (for example, the “Restricted Mode” controversy goes back years).
We’re entering an era where openly gay or trans-affirming content—articles like This Gay Week included—can face distribution headwinds driven by platform rules and automated systems.
On X, this dynamic is even more overt. In the last few days, Elon Musk has urged people to “cancel Netflix,” amplifying posts that frame LGBTQ and especially trans-inclusive shows as harmful to children. He shared a meme using a Trojan-horse metaphor to claim LGBTQ themes are being smuggled into kids’ content. Musk’s public dispute also sits alongside a widely reported estrangement from his transgender daughter.
Now he is calling for a ban on Netflix because it includes LGBTQ programming. Yes, Netflix’s stock has dipped recently, though attributing that directly to Musk’s comments is debatable—many factors influence stock movement. Still, his campaign against Netflix is part of a broader push to limit pro-LBGTQ and especially trans content on X.
Meta and YouTube are doing the same in their own ways. Unfortunately, groups like GLAAD and the Human Rights Campaign aren’t feared enough by these companies to deter them. The only real check would be political intervention. Still, currently, there are no politicians with the clout or willpower to compel these corporations to change.
So this suppression will likely increase. LGBTQ groups can sue, but the legal path is unclear. These platforms are privately owned. People often forget: there is no constitutional right to free speech on social media. Free speech protects you from government censorship, not private companies.
The platforms circumvent regulation by claiming they’re not broadcast companies. In reality, they are media companies—but because they’re private, they can silence speech at will. Think about it this way: you don’t have the right to say whatever you want at your job without consequences. If you insult your boss, you can expect to be fired. Social media platforms operate on a similar principle.
I’ve seen this in broadcasting. I’ve personally been in trouble with the FCC for comments I made on air. The station lawyers had to argue that I didn’t violate FCC rules. Many people think there are seven forbidden words—thanks to George Carlin’s comedy bit—but the FCC never actually listed seven words. The fundamental rule is: if the content is offensive to community standards, it can be restricted.
For example, what might be considered offensive in one region may be tolerated in another, depending on the community. Social media companies mimic this reasoning. They claim that the content violates “community standards.” Right now, it feels like Donald Trump is being treated as the arbiter of those standards, and companies are bowing to him.
Obviously, the Bay Area Reporter is upset by this. GLAAD, the HRC, and many LGBTQ content creators—including myself—are bothered by it. But I don’t see much that can be done unless we launch alternatives like “GayTube” or another independent platform. It could be done if a wealthy LGBTQ backer or organizations like GLAAD or HRC took the initiative; however, for now, the outlook is not optimistic.
That leads us into another story: Kash Patel has reportedly authorized the firing of an FBI employee who had a rainbow flag on his desk. The stated reason was “inappropriate political messaging at work.”
This is someone who actually won an award in 2022 for his work at the FBI. By all accounts, he was a strong, qualified employee. However, he was fired during the government shutdown due to a Pride flag he had kept on his desk.
Can he sue, claiming his freedom of speech was infringed? I’m not sure. The FBI is a government agency, not a private platform, but that doesn’t mean employees have unlimited free-speech protections at work. Government workers have been disciplined or fired in the past for posts made outside of their work hours. In this case, it was a flag in the office—and they’re saying he was still in an interim or probationary period, so they chose not to renew his appointment.
But really, this ties into the broader war on diversity, equity, and inclusion—DEI. This was politically motivated, and according to reporting, it had the president’s backing. The irony is striking: they said he was fired for displaying an “inappropriate political message,” when in fact the firing itself is a political message—zero tolerance for LGBTQ visibility.
It has become so extreme that, for the first time in decades, I’ve heard whispers in parts of the LGBTQ community about dropping the “T.” Now, that isn’t going to happen—we are not abandoning trans people. But it shows how the backlash against trans people is dragging the entire LGBTQ community into the crosshairs. Some are saying, “Maybe we shouldn’t be aligned with the trans fight because that’s Trump’s target.” However, we should be aligned, because the attack won’t stop there.
The man fired from the FBI wasn’t trans. He appeared to be gay, or at the very least an ally. He had a Pride flag. And now others inside these agencies are reportedly “policing” their desks to make sure, and I quote from the reporting, there is “nothing offensive to Donald Trump.” That is chilling—that is fascism. It’s another step toward authoritarian rule in the United States.
With three more years ahead, unless Democrats win back power in the midterms, I don’t see this ending. I see it getting worse. Just look at Pete Hegseth—sometimes jokingly called “Pete Hegeberger”—who said in a recent speech that the military “will no longer stand for men in dresses.”
He was referring to trans women serving openly. That statement made it clear: the military is now officially hostile to trans service members, and there are signs gays are being pushed back into the closet, almost back to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Only now it’s worse—they’re asking, and if you tell, you can be expelled. So yes, this is a dangerous time to be openly LGBTQ in a government agency like the FBI.
It appears that if you advocate for your community, you’re punished. Has anyone been fired from the FBI for displaying MAGA paraphernalia on their desk? Has anyone been fired for a “Make America Great Again” hat? No. And would they be? I guarantee they would not. If you had a MAGA hat on your desk at the FBI—a political message—you would not be fired.
However, if you have a Pride flag on your desk, you’re likely to be fired for “inappropriate political messaging.” That’s where we are. It’s a downhill slide, and I don’t see anyone standing in front of this train.
Jacobsen: The Guardian reports that in Slovakia, a constitutional amendment was passed on October 1 recognizing only “male” and “female.” It effectively makes same-sex adoption nearly impossible and explicitly bans legal gender recognition. Many rights groups have called this a “dark day,” saying it directly clashes with European human rights norms. Any thoughts?
Bouley: Donald Trump is exporting his anti-LBGTQ politics. Countries that had been slowly liberalizing under global pressure—loosening their anti-gay policies because the world was becoming more accepting—now feel free to reverse course. They can say, “We’re going back to being anti-gay, and no one can condemn us,” because they see cover from the U.S. government.
Yes, the EU is condemning it, but the U.S. isn’t, Russia supports it, and many African nations support it. There’s a large bloc of countries applauding Slovakia. And it’s not just Slovakia—Hungary has tried to clamp down on Pride, though activists have still marched anyway.
The point is, there’s a growing global anti-LBGTQ movement, and governments are riding that wave. Unless other nations respond economically—by cutting trade, boycotting tourism, and refusing to buy products—these countries won’t change. And no nation is willing to use economic leverage at this time. That’s why change is unlikely.
Under Biden and Obama, the U.S. was a pro-LBGTQ nation. We allowed open service in the military, pushed acceptance, and pressured others by example. That embarrassed countries into changing policies. But now that the U.S. is itself on an anti-trans and anti-gay trajectory, countries no longer look bad when they take repressive measures. They’re doing it openly and with impunity.
Jacobsen: The Denver Post covered a 10th Circuit ruling upholding Colorado’s nondiscrimination requirement in universal pre-K. This means religious preschools that accept public funds cannot exclude LGBTQ children or the children of LGBTQ parents. Any thoughts?
Bouley: Yes—it’s the one positive story we’ve got this week. It’s the one win for the LGBTQ+ community.
Jacobsen: This Gay Week, that’s it—the one win. We’ll take it.
Bouley: We’ll take it. Because just today, the University of Texas system announced that they’re going the other way. They want to remove gender studies and related programs. While it’s encouraging that a court upheld nondiscrimination—albeit at a lower court level, and we know where this could lead—it’s still a win.
Now, as a gay person, let me say: I never thought much about LGBTQ issues in kindergarten through sixth grade. I was gay from the womb, and when I came out, I was practically singing a show tune. The doctor slapped me, and I said, “Again.” I was a preemie—three pounds, pronounced dead at birth, but of course I had to make an entrance. I made them redesign my nursery. I’m sure I was like, “No, no, no. Too little colour here!”
So, honestly, I don’t often connect LGBTQ issues with pre-K through sixth grade. However, there are certainly children who, even in second or third grade, may not want to wear traditional outfits. And, truthfully, even straight kids experiment with dress-up—drag is not limited to queer kids. We’ve seen Republican figures like J.D. Vance and Madison Cawthorn photographed in drag. Ricky Gervais, too. And let’s be honest—every time I see Madison Cawthorn, my gaydar goes off like a gong.
Anyway, this case is a win. The court affirmed that we will not discriminate against parents or children. I don’t know how many real cases of LGBTQ discrimination exist in K–6. Still, the ruling upheld Colorado’s existing law: you cannot discriminate, period. The courts just had to remind people to follow the law.
Jacobsen: However, there’s a tendency in American commentary—and in the commentariat more broadly—that those with the time and platform often praise themselves simply for meeting the minimum benchmark of equality.
Bouley: It’s like, “We didn’t actively persecute today—aren’t we great?” But, of course, the reality is that the U.S. has a long record of discrimination. Every week, we come here and have no shortage of stories—stories of gay groups, or LGBTQ individuals defending themselves against government agencies, being fired, losing protections, or facing policy rollbacks.
America has always been hostile to difference. White, cisgender Christians? They’ve always been safe. But anyone outside that narrow category—Black, Chinese, immigrant, gay, trans, bisexual, non-binary, Asian, Indigenous—has been treated poorly.
From the very start, Native Americans didn’t invite us here. We forced them out, subjugated them, and placed them on reservations, which were essentially concentration camps. The Statue of Liberty’s inscription—”Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses”—has always been a lie. We don’t welcome the marginalized. We round them up, we detain them, we deport them. That’s the American tradition.
Jacobsen: And maybe it’s more like, “We don’t want them. We want them to be…”
Bouley: Well, we don’t want to huddle. I wonder if the French wrote that. I don’t know who wrote the inscription. Did it come with the statue? Honestly, the French should request the return of the statue. If I were them, I’d say, “Look, you’re not living up to this.”
The New Colossus, the inscription on the Statue of Liberty, was written by Emma Lazarus. She lived from 1849 to 1887.
Jacobsen: She wrote the poem in 1883 to help raise money for the construction of the pedestal. The statue itself was a gift from France, but the U.S. had to provide the base.
Bouley: They just sent the statue, not the pedestal. The U.S. had to build the base. One of the most significant early concerns about the statue was that her arm might collapse. I once read a piece about how there was even an explosion—an act of sabotage—on Black Tom Island near New York Harbour during World War I, which damaged the statue and bent her arm. They had to repair it.
So, the notion that we genuinely want immigrants and diversity? That’s over. Honestly, it never really existed. We never treated immigrants well. Italians came here escaping tyranny, often arriving with nothing. At Ellis Island, they had little documentation. That’s where the slur “WOP” came from—without papers. It was a derogatory term, especially in New York.
We’ve never been kind to immigrants. The Irish were treated as severely as Black Americans when they first arrived. Some signs said, “No Blacks, No Irish.” I’ve seen the historical evidence of those signs. We’ve never been a more open and welcoming society. I’m not sure where that myth originates. We’ve always had an enemy: Native Americans, whom we fought, displaced, and confined to reservations. Later, communists, “Reds,” and Japanese Americans were thrown into internment camps. And of course, this country was built on enslaved labour, and Black Americans have been treated poorly ever since.
We’ve never truly been this beacon of acceptance. And as a 62-year-old gay man, I can tell you: there has never been a single day in my life when I’ve felt entirely accepted and embraced by this country. When someone like Trump rises to power, it amplifies that hatred and legitimizes it. Then, other leaders try to push it back down. Generationally, younger people are often more accepting, and as older generations age out, prejudice tends to decrease over time. But the danger now is that younger people are being reindoctrinated into this cycle of hate.
Jacobsen: We do see data that backs this. You’ve probably seen it too. There’s a gender split: girls continue a multigenerational trend toward more acceptance, but young boys and young men have actually trended backward, more aligned with reactionary attitudes than even a generation ago.
Bouley: The divergence is striking. I’m terrified of young white men. When I see a group of 20- or 25-year-old white men—unless it’s at a gay bar—I avoid them. They feel dangerous. Their testosterone is raging. Their politics often lean extreme. So yes, I steer clear.
Jacobsen: The prime age for mass shooters is 17. Well over 90% are young cisgender white men.
Bouley: When I was 17, I was more concerned with getting my hair permed.
Jacobsen: Also in the news, The Advocate has ranked states with the most same-sex couples per capita, using a Williams Institute analysis based on 2020 census data. Delaware leads with 12.61 per 1,000 households, followed by Oregon and Vermont. California ranks highest in absolute numbers but 7th per capita.
Bouley: You have to remember how big California is—39 to 40 million people. So that’s why it would rank number one if it had fewer people. But as one of the most populous states in the U.S., it ranks differently. My state, Nevada, surprisingly had 12.32 same-sex couples per 1,000 households, which makes me feel very unloved. Same as Hawaii.
And from that list, I can tell you that Massachusetts, ranked number six, is consistently at the top in surveys by GLAAD, HRC, and others regarding legal protections, acceptance, and overall quality of life for LGBTQ people. While it ranks number six for same-sex couples, it tops the list in terms of being the most LGBTQ-friendly state overall.
Now, this should not be confused with the states with the highest overall number of LGBTQ people. This list is about same-sex couples. Delaware tops it because of its 12.61 couples per 1,000 households, but remember, Delaware also has a relatively small population.
Most of the states on this list are blue states: Delaware, Oregon, Vermont, Hawaii, Massachusetts, California, Washington, and New Mexico. Nevada is purple at best. Florida is the outlier—it’s not blue, but it has strong LGBTQ hubs like Miami and Wilton Manors.
So it’s good to see. And I’d also note: one of the arguments against marriage equality was that if you allowed gays and lesbians to marry, it would destroy the institution of marriage. I’m pleased to announce that in Delaware, Oregon, Vermont, Nevada, Hawaii, Massachusetts, California, Washington, New Mexico, and Florida, there are still many stable, happy opposite-sex marriages. Marriage has not been destroyed.
This is encouraging news. It’s also interesting to examine the geography of where LGBTQ couples reside. Again, nine out of ten of these states are blue or purple. For example, Nevada went red statewide in the last election. Still, Clark County, which includes Las Vegas, went blue for Biden. Clark County alone accounts for 3 million of Nevada’s 4.5 million residents. The rural areas went red, offsetting that.
I think there’s a correlation between the number of same-sex couples and how states vote, as well as the protections and equal rights afforded to LGBTQ residents. It’s also striking to see that in many of these places, 12 to nearly 13 out of every 1,000 households are same-sex couples.
That makes you wonder, when we read all these stories of pushback, how politicians can continue to ignore those numbers. It’s obvious there’s a significant LGBTQ population in the U.S.—both individuals and couples. And yet, in the next Supreme Court term, starting Monday, one of the issues they’ll likely take up is same-sex marriage.
Yet, as you see, it is very well accepted, and there are large numbers of LGBTQ couples. So we’ll see. It appears that the people and the nation want same-sex marriage and don’t have a problem with it. And yet, it’s going to end up back in front of the Supreme Court.
Jacobsen: Reuters in the UK published an explainer on the UK Supreme Court’s April ruling, which states that “sex” in equality law refers to biological sex. Trans people and advocates have described a series of rapid policy shifts—in areas such as sports and policing, for example—and a heightened sense of risk in everyday life, as the government weighs formal guidance. Any thoughts?
Bouley: So this is yet another case of people trying to find in the court something that is really not going to be up to the courts to decide. A societal shift in gender norms is necessary for these cases to cease. And all this case proves, again, is that we have not come to a consensus on gender.
What is a male? What is a female? What is intersex?
When these rulings happen, like the one that just happened in London, it makes trans people, it makes gay people wonder: Am I safe in my community? Because what happens in the courts trickles out into the community. Am I safe?
The court affirmed that under equality laws, the term “sex” refers to biological sex, meaning a transgender woman is legally considered male and a transgender man is lawfully regarded as female. That’s a problem, because they’re not.
And so you have the law saying, “No, you’re a man,” or “No, you’re a woman.” Meanwhile, people have undergone surgeries and are not biologically that way anymore. There’s an incongruity between the law and reality. And people get caught in the middle—that’s what this does.
As the article noted, it has almost made it legal to harass trans people. One man interviewed at Gay’s the Word, Britain’s oldest LGBTQ bookshop, said he was now hyper-aware of people noticing him and the fact that he is trans.
So when you get these rulings that say, “No, a man is a man, a woman is a woman, and surgery does not matter,” it ignores reality. That’s where these cases miss the point. You can scream at the top of your lungs that someone is “really” a man or “really” a woman, but if they are not living that way, if they don’t have those organs anymore, then they’re not.
You can say they are until you’re blue in the face, you can legislate it, but all you’re doing is harming people.
And it’s incredible how rulings like this keep coming. They’re not making anyone safer. We have to step back for a moment and examine: what is the purpose of law?
The law is in place to ensure a harmonious existence for everyone in the community. That’s really what the law is for—to ensure that people act responsibly and behave appropriately. The law is not there to make it harder for people who are simply trying to live their lives.
Yet, all of these rulings about what is a man and what is a woman are not making anything better. They’re only making things worse. You have to wonder why these rulings have become the norm. And of course, it’s homophobia and transphobia, which, as we’ve talked about earlier, are now being openly accepted. These laws are draconian. These lawsuits are draconian. They serve no purpose in the community, when the purpose of law is supposed to be to help its community. And instead, people get caught in the middle.
There will therefore have to be a significant societal shift across the globe. And that shift will come with younger people, not older people, accepting that there are more than two genders, that gender can be fluid, and that every human being has the right to determine their own gender—and that society should accept that. If a trans woman says she is a woman, we should assume that. There should be no legal basis to challenge that. We’re not there yet. And until we get there, these cases will continue to arise.
Jacobsen: Over to the East—Human Rights Watch reports that the Sapporo Family Court has struck down Japan’s requirement that trans people alter their genital appearance to change their legal gender. This follows from a 2023 Supreme Court ruling against sterilization mandates. It’s pushing Japan toward recognition without medical preconditions. This directly connects to your point.
Bouley: What Japan had previously said was that transgender people had to alter their appearance and their genitals to be legally recognized as male or female. However, another court has now ruled that this is unconstitutional. They ruled that it takes away trans people’s fundamental right to legal recognition.
Since 2004, transgender people in Japan who wanted to legally change their gender needed to apply to a family court under the Gender Identity Disorder Special Cases Act. Applicants had to undergo a psychiatric evaluation, be surgically sterilized, and have genitalia that closely resembled the physical form of the alternative gender. They also had to be single and without children.
In 2023, a case went before the Supreme Court where a transgender woman argued that the sterilization requirement violated her constitutional rights. The 15 justices ruled unanimously that being forced to undergo sterilization surgery constituted a significant violation of freedom from invasive procedures, and thus violated Japan’s constitution. It was only the 12th time in modern Japanese history that the Supreme Court had found a law unconstitutional.
The Court also asked lower courts to review the requirement mandating surgical alteration of genitalia. In 2024, the Hiroshima High Court ruled that mandating surgery for gender recognition cases was unconstitutional. Now, Japan is essentially saying: We will recognize you legally without requiring bottom surgery.
If a trans man has not had phalloplasty, or if a trans woman has not had vaginoplasty, they can still be legally recognized as their chosen gender. Frankly, I’m amazed that for so many years, someone in Japan was effectively tasked with checking this kind of thing.
“Okay, pull down your pants.” In 2025, that’s where we’re at—we’re still asking people to drop their trousers, like Hitler did, to see who was Jewish and who was not. That’s what we’re talking about here. The way the Germans often distinguished Jewish boys from non-Jewish boys was to have them drop their pants. Jews were circumcised; many Germans were not. And if they were circumcised, they were discriminated against or killed. It’s the same sort of thing.
So I’m glad—this is another positive story this week. I’m happy that, for the 12th time in its history, the Japanese Supreme Court declared a law unconstitutional. This ruling makes life a little easier for trans people in Japan, instead of harder.
Jacobsen: The last item for today—AP, you touched on this a bit. There was a speech or two given by Secretary of War—formally Defence Secretary, but informally now styled Secretary of War—Pete Hegseth, followed by President Donald Trump. Approximately 800 high-ranking generals and officers in the American Armed Forces were seated, mostly quietly. The gist was that Mr. Hegseth de-emphasized DEI, de-emphasized trans-inclusive initiatives, and framed this, apart from the rhetorical flourishes, as a broader cultural shift within the American military—one that will distinctly affect LGBTQ service members following internal guidance. What are your thoughts?
Bouley: He also marginalized women by saying, “We’re going to have a physical fitness test, and if you can’t pass it, you can’t serve.” By the way, neither he nor Trump could pass the military’s physical fitness test. Let me share this with you.
I fed the speech into ChatGPT—both Trump’s and Hegseth’s—and asked it for a historical perspective on the speech given to these military officers. Here’s what ChatGPT had to say:
Donald Trump and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth recently told top U.S. military leaders to prepare for a so-called “enemy from within,” referring broadly to Democrats, critics, and political opponents. They also opposed LGBTQ and trans people openly serving in the military. They wanted to establish a new fitness regime for the generals as well as for everyone serving.
This framing echoes authoritarian rhetoric, where opposition voices are painted as equivalent to foreign adversaries, and where many are deemed unfit to serve in the military based on arbitrary guidelines.
The U.S. Constitution mandates civilian control of the military and protects free speech and dissent under the First Amendment. Using the military to target political opposition or groups deemed “unfit” violates constitutional principles and blurs the line between defence and domestic policy.
Throughout history, authoritarian leaders have used “enemies within” rhetoric aimed at marginalized groups to justify repression and militarization of politics. Adolf Hitler used the notion of internal enemies—Jews, communists, dissenters, and others he deemed unworthy—to justify emergency laws and violent crackdowns in 1930s Germany. Benito Mussolini framed socialists and political opponents as enemies undermining Italy, leading to fascist squads suppressing dissent. Joseph Stalin branded political rivals as internal enemies, resulting in purges, show trials, and the weaponization of the state against civilians. He also purged the military of anyone he did not deem loyal or “fit.”
Augusto Pinochet in Chile portrayed leftists and activists as internal threats to justify military rule and brutal crackdowns. After the 1973 coup, he ensured that everyone in the military was loyal to him and expelled anyone deemed unfit in any way. Francisco Franco in Spain declared opponents enemies of the nation and used the military to impose authoritarian rule for decades.
Painting political opponents or active members of the military as “unfit” or as enemies from within undermines democratic norms, delegitimizes dissent, and invites authoritarian-style governance. Historically, such moves precede restrictions on civil liberties, consolidations of power, and, in extreme cases, violent repression.
That was the analysis from ChatGPT on the speech.
Jacobsen: Was this ChatGPT 5.0?
Bouley: 5.0. I did not bias the prompt. I did not say, “Is this unconstitutional?” or “Is this authoritarian?” or anything like that. I asked it for a historical analysis of what the Secretary of War and Donald Trump said, and that is what it said.
Even after Donald Trump made them sign a pledge that the algorithm would not produce “fake news” or be politically biased, it still displayed this content. So it’s dangerous. That entire speech was dangerous. Spending over $500,000 to bring everyone to Washington—at a time when we’re in a budgetary crisis and the government is shutting down—was a ridiculous waste of money. This could have been a Zoom call.
It was more of an indoctrination and a loyalty test of the people who were there than anything else. He did not openly say gay people could not serve, but he indeed alluded to the fact that trans people are verboten. He called them “men in dresses,” which is possibly one of the most degrading things you can say about a trans woman, and then alluded to other LGBTQ people.
I have always maintained that if the military does not want us, then we should not serve. They need us more than we need them. The military needs people more than gay people need to be in the military. That is just my personal view. I have always thought: Why would you serve in an army that doesn’t want you? Find another way to serve your country.
The entire speech was dangerous. The rhetoric was alarming. He told the military to practice on American cities. That is fascism, and it is against the Constitution. You cannot deploy American troops in American cities. He does not care, and neither does Pete Hegseth.
Yes, as I said, gays, lesbians, and trans people are being pushed back into the closet in the military. That is unfortunate, but for the next three years, that will be the way it is. If I were gay and thinking of joining the military, I would think twice, and I would indeed find another way to serve my country.
Jacobsen: There are always rights groups needing members.
Bouley: Join the Rainbow Railroad and help people flee to Canada.
Jacobsen: That’s right. We’ll call it the Maple Railroad.
Bouley: By the way, does Canada have any restrictions on its military, correct? LGBT individuals can serve openly in the Canadian army .Gays and trans people can serve openly. I know they can in the UK for sure, and in the EU for sure. I’m not familiar with Canada.
Jacobsen: Before 1992, the Canadian military had policies exclusively excluding gay and lesbian individuals. Based on Canadian Forces Administrative Order 19-20, so there’s a formal order. Michelle Douglas, a CAF member officer dismissed for being lesbian, was a turning point. Her case went to trial. The military revoked its ban in October 1992. The policy was officially cancelled. I’m assuming the policy is in accordance with CF Administrative Order 19-20. The Department of National Defence has initiatives for inclusion, known as the Positive Space Initiative, within its ranks. I am not aware of the start date in 2021. The government apologized for the purge of LGBTQ individuals.
Bouley: Your government apologized for the LGBTQ purge, and we just had the Department of National Defence saying he’s going to initiate an LGBTQ purge. There’s quite a stark contrast between what you’re doing there and what he has in store for us here.
Jacobsen: It’’s one border away. It’s the longest border in the world. You cross it, you’re accepted. You go to the other one, you’re not accepted into the military.
Bouley: It might be one small border, but trust me, it’s like crossing into an entirely different world.
Jacobsen: I travelled three weeks in a big W, reverse W, across the United States. Amtrak wasn’t a surprise. It was just Amtrak, whatever. It’s a train. The surprise part is not high-speed rail—that’s one surprise. However, the second, and more critical surprise, is the diverse range of personas you meet across the United States. And that’s really the big part.
Bouley: I won’t go to the South anymore. I just won’t. It’s dangerous for me, and I won’t go. Texas, Louisiana. I mean, New Orleans, okay. But, you know, Alabama.
Jacobsen: New Orleans is great.
Bouley: I like New Orleans.
Jacobsen: Yeah.
Bouley: New Orleans is a great city—Narlins, as you’re supposed to pronounce it.
Jacobsen: Narlins.
Bouley: Narlins. But Texas, fuck Texas. No need to go.
Bouley: Louisiana, outside of New Orleans, no need to go. Alabama, Georgia, Florida, the Carolinas, no need to go if you’re an openly gay person. And I know there are many of them there, but I see no need to go. It’s dangerous. It has actually gotten hazardous again. And I’ll close with that.
Everything that we talk about every week, all it’s doing is making it more dangerous in America to be gay again. It’s going right back to the pre-Reagan era, where it is just unsafe to be an openly gay, trans, bi, or non-binary person in this country. Look at entertainment. Hulu has just cancelled three shows featuring gay characters, including Mid-Century Modern withNathan Lane and Matt Bomer. The Chi, that got cancelled. So the networks are cancelling LGBTQ shows in record numbers. This last year, the GLAAD Media Report said that there are fewer gay people on television now than there were three years ago.
There’s talk of RuPaul’s Drag Race, because World of Wonder produces it, but it is then sold to Paramount. MTV is Paramount, and David just bought Paramount—what is his name—Ellison, the son of Larry Ellison. They’re both billionaires who are in Trump’s pocket—Skydance, which is a UK company. And so now there’s talk: is RuPaul’s Drag Race going to go away?
And it wouldn’t go away; it would have to find a new home like Netflix. So all of this does, every week that we talk about this, is hurt people and makes it harder to be gay in the world. That’s all that’s happening right now, the wave of pro-gay has now receded, almost like a tsunami, where it’s pulling all the water away from the beach.
So they’re trying to pull all the progress that we’ve made back and have a tsunami of bigotry hit us. And as far as I can see, it’s happening. And all you can do is if you’re gay, head for higher ground, because the tsunami of hatred has started. And there’s nothing—yes, we have a few good stories, like the one in Japan, or the other good story we discussed in Colorado.
But two good stories and ten negative ones. There is a tsunami of hatred. And they’re pulling back, like a tsunami pulls back all the ocean. They’re pulling back all the positive goals and all the progress that we’ve made. And then the massive tsunami of hate is coming. You can either get caught up in it or head to higher ground.
Jacobsen: I talked to the activists in Ghana, for instance. That onerous bill that was proposed a while ago might still be, in part, outside of Uganda, the most repressive bill in the world, for LGBT. A lot of it was backed, almost primarily, by the American Protestant whites in the United States who have a lot of money. So that’s the danger.
Bouley: We’re exporting our hate. The religious organizations and evangelical organizations, which are hugely funded because they’re tax-exempt, are aligning themselves with MAGA and spreading this hate internationally. That’s why you see the situation in Slovakia. That’s why you see the stuff in Africa. These people aren’t sitting around funding this themselves. They’re getting a massive influx of money from America and American haters because they want to spread their hate.
Jacobsen: There will be corrupt people who—if it doesn’t even matter what the topic is, if it doesn’t affect them personally, and it gives them money—they’ll happily take Western money. That’s another thing that was put out. So, the concern they would have is similar to that of naive Westerners, who do not understand that it doesn’t matter what the topic is if there’s money attached to it.
Bouley: This is what I told you earlier—that LGBTQ people will not start seeing rights go our way again until there’s money involved. Until countries say, “Well, we’re not going to deal with you. We’re not going to give you this contract because you have this anti-gay policy. So until you strike that down, you’re not going to get this contract.”
Until that starts happening again, which it was, and it had been happening. The Biden administration wouldn’t do business with you if you were anti-gay. They just wouldn’t. Or they put limits on the company they would do with you if you were anti-gay, anti-woman, anti-trans, you know.
So until the United States and other places—England, Canada, wherever—refuse to do business with countries that are suppressing gays, we won’t make any change. There’s no money in it. We only do things for money. No government ever does anything because it’s the right thing. They’re either compelled to do it by their court or forced to do it financially. That’s where we’re at now.
Jacobsen: Yes, a lot of these activist efforts, a lot of human rights efforts, are downstream of, as you’re saying, courts and finance.
Bouley: Those are the two things. Either the court tells them to do it, or it’s a financial benefit. And by the way, what you just said works both ways. They may not be pro-gay. They may not like gays. But if it’s profitable for them to become suddenly pro-gay, they’ll do it.
Jacobsen: We briefly discussed the corporate endorsement. I have conducted a few other interviews that will be released soon, also covering a similar topic.
Bouley: Yeah. So when it becomes profitable for them to be pro-gay, they will. We just saw—one of our first conversations, you and I—was how it’s no longer profitable for American companies to be pro-gay. And so they’re changing their policies to be negative, to be not gay. Because they do not want to lose money. So, it is all about the cash. Alright, much love! We will see you next week.
Jacobsen: Thank you!
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/10
Colin Thomas-Jensen outlines Afghanistan’s overlapping crises: earthquakes on top of a humanitarian emergency, sanctions and access hurdles, power outages, and bans limiting the aid of Afghan women. Nearly 22.9 million people need help; pre-winter gaps include shelter materials, winterized items, and dependable food assistance. UN agencies and Gulf states channel relief through established channels; cash aid is effective where markets function, although compliance barriers persist. He describes a hollowed aid architecture: less funding, weaker logistics, and poor data. With the US capacity cut, diplomacy and local partners are of the utmost importance. He urges pragmatic negotiations with the Taliban to secure access while protecting civilians and rebuilding trust.
In this interview with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Thomas-Jensen details Afghanistan’s layered crises, where earthquakes compound an already dire humanitarian emergency affecting nearly half the population. He explains how aid delivery is obstructed by Taliban restrictions on women workers, shrinking international resources, and limited infrastructure. Despite these challenges, UN agencies and Gulf state contributions provide essential relief; however, winterization gaps—such as shelter, heating, and food—remain urgent and pressing. Thomas-Jensen underscores the collapse of US aid capacity, the loss of reliable data, and the sidelining of Afghan women responders. Aurora Humanitarian Initiative catalyzes lifesaving work by celebrating and supporting exceptional humanitarians around the world. Aurora was founded on behalf of the survivors of the Armenian Genocide and in gratitude to their saviors. Over the past decade, the organization has built a global network and supported more than 3.5 million people affected by humanitarian crises. By funding humanitarians around the world who continue the cycle of giving, this work contributes to proliferating humanitarianism into the future. As director of impact for the Aurora Humanitarian Initiative (https://aurorahumanitarian.org/en), he argues for empowering local actors and innovative funding to restore resilience and save lives.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Afghanistan has suffered further tragedies, with more loss of life and suffering from earthquakes on top of an already severe humanitarian crisis. In the midst of this, what are the basic facts on the ground now, and what unmet needs remain?
Colin Thomas-Jensen: Afghanistan faces one of the world’s largest humanitarian emergencies. In 2025, the UN estimates that approximately 22.9 million people—nearly half the country’s population—require assistance. Access is difficult in parts of the country, and the overall situation is fragile. Displacement after quakes adds pressure on families sheltering relatives and on the limited relief presence that can reach affected areas.
Since the Taliban’s return to power in 2021, many international NGOs and UN agencies have continued operating, but with severe constraints, including restrictions on Afghan women aid workers (first ordered for NGOs in December 2022) and periodic access challenges. These measures materially hinder the response capacity across sectors.
The United Nations and its partners remain central to relief operations. For earthquake responses in 2023–2025—for example, Herat in 2023 and Kunar in August 2025—agencies such as the WFP have delivered food and other essentials, utilizing emergency logistics to reach remote areas quickly.
Gulf states have played a visible supporting role, flying in or shipping relief supplies that are then routed into quake zones via established humanitarian channels. Qatar and the UAE, for example, sent multiple consignments to support Afghanistan’s earthquake response, including airlifts to Herat and shipments staged via Pakistan for overland delivery. These consignments typically integrate with UN and NGO distribution systems for “last-mile” delivery.
As winter approaches, priority gaps include emergency shelter, winterized household items, and reliable food assistance to support affected communities through the cold season. These needs align with countrywide planning figures in the UN’s 2025 response documents.
On cash assistance and community feedback: humanitarian actors have used cash-based responses after quakes—for example, Herat in 2023—to stimulate local markets and allow families to prioritize essentials. After-action reviews highlight both the benefits and implementation constraints in the current operating environment. Feedback mechanisms are typically run through UN and NGO partners, as well as local organizations that handle the last-mile interface with communities.
For regional context, a similar “others step in” pattern has been visible elsewhere. Following Myanmar’s major earthquake in March 2025, China deployed significant rescue teams and provided food assistance, alongside broader international support.
Accessing this part of Afghanistan is particularly challenging, especially following the earthquake. Over the last 15 to 20 years, it has become clear that cash delivery is one of the most effective ways to provide relief quickly, especially in rapid-onset emergencies where markets are functioning normally. The challenge in Afghanistan is sanctions. The provision of monetary assistance is generally subject to oversight by the US Department of the Treasury. If it is not provided in US dollars, that is possible, but most humanitarian transactions and cash deliveries are conducted in dollars.
Jacobsen: What about the compounding factor of recent outages?
Thomas-Jensen: Power outages. This is a country that, even in the best of times, has limited infrastructure for electricity and clean water, particularly in rural areas. When USAID and others had a larger presence on the ground, more information and analysis were available to identify the areas with the greatest needs.
One of the significant challenges currently facing not only Afghanistan but also the world is the collapse of the humanitarian aid architecture and infrastructure. The first problem is fewer dollars with which to respond to crises. Just as significant is the lack of reliable data that humanitarian actors need to target assistance effectively.
When I worked at USAID, we took the use of US taxpayer dollars seriously. We relied on credible data to determine where those dollars would have the most impact and how to direct NGO and UN partners. At this point, it is essentially a local effort with some UN support; however, the ability to gather the kind of information that once guided humanitarian responses has been hampered by the broader weakening of the aid system.
Jacobsen: Outside of the local context, how do you even get reliable information for assessing delivery, as well as post-fact efficacy?
Thomas-Jensen: One significant change in the past decade is the role of social media. Much of the early information during disaster response, especially for large-scale natural disasters in rural, hard-to-reach areas, comes from local people recording videos of the damage and posting them online. Analysts then sift through this material to identify where urgent needs are most significant.
In terms of physically reaching communities, I have done relief operations all over the world. When conditions are this severe, you do whatever you can to get the affected people to safety. In Afghanistan, the mountainous terrain makes it even more challenging.
Afghanistan lacks extensive road access. A significant amount of aid is reaching communities in traditional ways—by pack animals carrying supplies into areas inaccessible to vehicles.
Jacobsen: What about pre-winterization needs such as extra shelter, warmth, and insulation? Are there any flooding complications related to the earthquakes?
Thomas-Jensen: We have not seen significant flooding consequences. The primary concern with shelter is simply getting a roof over people’s heads. Heating, sadly, is a luxury for most Afghans, even in the best of times, often limited to traditional indoor fires or cookstoves. The focus now is on getting shelter materials into the country. The UN is effective in this area—bringing in materials that displaced people and families who have lost their homes can use to build viable shelters that can endure what is often a long and harsh Afghan winter.
As I mentioned earlier, Afghanistan has resilient people who have endured repeated trauma and disaster. While it is disappointing that the international community cannot respond with the same speed and scale as it did a few years ago, I am hopeful that as international agencies withdraw, more space will open up for local actors to take on leadership in the response. That said, commodities for shelter still need to be brought in—that is the immediate priority.
Jacobsen: An analogous case with USAID cuts involves other areas of reduced funding in the United States. Some of those positions have been rehired and partially refinanced. Are there any indications of a reversal of prior cuts for Afghanistan?
Thomas-Jensen: No. Even in the near future, no. The process through which the US government is currently making decisions about humanitarian funding remains opaque. What we do see clearly is that aid is prioritized for countries with either direct strategic interest or those in the Western Hemisphere. Afghanistan is not a priority for the United States.
That said, I would argue the US still has significant strategic interests there, given the presence of ISIS-K and their ability to project violence and terror in the region. But Afghanistan no longer receives priority attention. For comparison: I was on the ground in Haiti three days after the 2010 earthquake. Haiti is much closer to the US than Afghanistan, so the logistical advantage there was immense.
The assets the US once had to respond to crises of this scale have, in large part, been eliminated. For example, USAID used to contract urban search-and-rescue teams for conflict and disaster zones. After the 2010 Haiti earthquake, teams from Fairfax County, Virginia and Los Angeles County in less than two days. Those teams pulled survivors from the rubble, including American citizens.
Ironically, the contract for those teams was eliminated on the same day as the Myanmar earthquake. Had the contract remained in place, the US could have deployed them to support affected communities. Instead, USAID personnel flown in from Thailand to help coordinate the Myanmar response were themselves fired while they were still in the quake zone.
Jacobsen: What about calculating the scale of suffering? There is the immediate suffering of deaths and injuries, but also the damage to infrastructure—homes, schools, businesses.
Thomas-Jensen: In Afghanistan, Haiti, and Myanmar, most buildings in rural areas are constructed with basic materials. Even where designs account for some seismic resistance, an earthquake of this magnitude causes catastrophic damage. Entire villages in Afghanistan were levelled. That is the reported pattern, and it is likely repeated in areas that are still inaccessible and undocumented.
By contrast, in more developed countries, many buildings are designed to withstand major earthquakes. That is not the case in Afghanistan, which magnifies the destruction.
Compounding this are gender-based restrictions. After the Taliban returned to power, the UN and NGOs were barred from employing female aid workers. This reversed two decades of partnership, where many Afghan women had become vital relief workers and first responders. They brought critical knowledge of local needs, particularly those of women and children—the groups most vulnerable in times of crisis.
Excluding women has effectively halved the talent pool. When 50 percent of experienced staff are sidelined during a national emergency, scaling up an adequate response becomes nearly impossible. The UN has highlighted this as a significant barrier at precisely the moment when an all-hands response is needed.
Jacobsen: What about Afghan-led groups for funding and support?
Thomas-Jensen: Afghan partners on the ground remain essential. In any country, large UN agencies or major NGOs, such as the International Rescue Committee or Save the Children, often undertake a significant portion of the work themselves. However, to reach rural and isolated communities, they typically partner with and sub-grant to local organizations. The “trickle-down” funding has largely been cut off due to reductions in aid. We are left with whatever relief agencies are still present, trying to rebuild those relationships and the infrastructure.
The impact of USAID’s dismantling has been dramatic. It is not only about the US responding directly, but about America’s ability to encourage other partners to respond. US assistance traditionally leveraged more aid, especially in moments like this. With cuts, an entire network of relationships and a 20-year supply chain was disrupted. Shutting it down is simple—it can be done with a letter. Reconstructing it is far more difficult. The result is now much improvisation in disaster response, where previously there was at least a functioning system able to move assistance to people promptly.
Jacobsen: Even setting aside your former role at USAID, from a professional standpoint, are there directly correlated deaths associated with the cuts to USAID under the current administration?
Thomas-Jensen: Absolutely—every day. The Lancet, a credible UK-based medical journal, has projected 14 million excess deaths by 2030 as a result of these cuts. Much of this will be felt in public health rather than disaster response. Cutting people off from antiretroviral drugs, halting tuberculosis programs, ending malaria net distribution, and undoing decades of progress in disease control—those decisions cost lives.
I can give a concrete example. My organization, Aurora, supports a hospital in Sudan. A few weeks after the cuts, the head of that hospital contacted me asking how to obtain ARVs (antiretroviral drugs) and TB medications because his supply was gone. He said, “I have patients who, if they do not get this round of treatment, the entire process becomes worthless.” That illustrates how abrupt disruptions destroy continuity of care, particularly for TB treatment.
The excess deaths will also be felt in the broader humanitarian space. Humanitarian work is not just about delivering supplies—it is also about the practice of humanitarian diplomacy. If you approach a government with resources and say, “We want to help,” it’s much easier to initiate cooperation. Without resources, governments are often reluctant to seek assistance, whether due to pride or political considerations.
Negotiating for access is fundamental. No relief operation achieves anything if you cannot reach the people who need help. In every country, the government is the principal gatekeeper for whether agencies can operate effectively. Numbers will continue to be debated—credible and less credible—but it is safe to say millions of excess deaths will occur because of these cuts.
This is a story that must continue to be told, because the effects of the cuts will have a long tail. People will remember showing up at clinics for their regular supply of antiretrovirals, seeing the medicines still on the shelves, but being told they could not be distributed because the organization had received a stop-work order. That really happened.
Jacobsen: Diplomacy with a democratic society is probably easier than with a theocratic one. How is diplomacy conducted with governments whose interpretation of Islam is politically theocratic?
Thomas-Jensen: You appeal to shared humanity. These are Afghan citizens, and they are suffering. You work with the government to negotiate access—where you can operate, what compromises you accept—while maximizing your ability to deliver aid. Afghanistan is no different. Restrictions on women working in relief are particularly debilitating, but the Taliban still has an interest in responding to crises. They want to project that they can govern and meet people’s needs. The truth is, they cannot do that without outside help.
That is where the leverage lies: resources. Humanitarian principles guide this work. We are not there to support U.S. political or military agendas—we are there to provide essential services, including food, water, shelter, and medical care. The message to the Taliban is: you have a political interest in responding, and we can help you do that.
Jacobsen: What objections do you hear to that?
Thomas-Jensen: These days, the most common objection is domestic: many argue that US taxpayer dollars should not be used for crises overseas when the US faces severe crises at home. America indeed faces significant challenges of its own, but this perspective often overlooks the interconnectedness of global stability and security—and how quickly crises abroad can impact people at home.
Many argue that crises abroad are not in the strategic interest of the United States—or even if they are, that it is not America’s role to be the world’s emergency responder. I agree. It is not our job. It is a choice, one that brings advantages: stability, influence, and goodwill.
What is profound now is the loss of trust. For decades, there was bipartisan consensus that it was in our interest to maintain a strong humanitarian presence overseas—to act quickly when crises struck and to project our character as a generous nation. I still believe we are fundamentally that. But when humanitarian response becomes politicized—when one administration supports it and another dismantles it—you erode confidence. Other countries no longer trust the US to be a reliable partner, and rebuilding that trust will be a slow and challenging process.
On the one hand, this puts us at a disadvantage. On the other hand, and I will end somewhat optimistically, it creates opportunities for local responders, local organizations, and individual humanitarians—the kinds of people we support—to step up and thrive. The challenge now is reorienting a system built on writing extensive checks to major organizations into one where smaller, direct investments in local actors can have a meaningful impact.
Jacobsen: Any final thoughts?
Thomas-Jensen: Only that I am glad to answer these questions. People need to understand, as objectively as possible, the impact of aid cuts and the crises people are enduring. I have been on the front lines of many disasters, and from personal experience, the work we did meant a lot to the people receiving assistance. They never forgot that the US—and the world—showed up.
We are now in a different place. But I hope that by empowering and supporting local people, we can still have a meaningful impact.
If you have any follow-up, let me know. We can get you more specifics on our colleagues working in Afghanistan; a couple of them have done relevant work there. I just watched a TED Talk – One of our local humanitarians from Afghanistan gave a TED talk about keeping her school open.
She [Sakena Yacoobi is] an educator, and in the midst of a crisis she was suddenly thrust into being a humanitarian—who else would organize a response if not her? It’s interesting to see how this dynamic is changing.
Jacobsen: I’ve been part of the international humanist community and have some colleagues in Nigeria and Ghana.A big complaint they have is that groups wanting to join Humanists International as “humanist” organizations are, by their own activities and definitions, actually humanitarian organizations. That channel can attract scams, but there are also legitimate groups simply scrambling for any source of funding.
Thomas-Jensen: Funding is extremely tight. Large-scale philanthropy often assumes some portion will be lost to waste or fraud and budgets accordingly. The irony is that even massive, well-run entities—think a $40-billion company—carry a few weak projects.
Jacobsen: If the Department of Government Efficiency truly wanted to pursue waste as aggressively as it claims, it could look hard at the Pentagon, where there are programs worth billions that critics consider wasteful of taxpayer money. Chris Hedges—a former New York Times correspondent and an ordained Presbyterian minister—has commented on the bloat: budgets expand, and even some generals acknowledge they don’t know what to do with the excess.
Thomas-Jensen: The U.S. military, when it wants to be, is the most powerful, efficient, and effective military on the Earth. The Pentagon, when it wants to be, can also be the slowest, least effective, least efficient bureaucracy on the planet. The two things can be true.
Jacobsen: Thank you, Colin. I appreciate your time and expertise.
Thomas-Jensen: Thank you. It was good to meet you.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/09
Riane Eisler, an Austrian-born American systems scientist, futurist, and human rights advocate, is renowned for her influential work on cultural transformation and gender equity. Best known for “The Chalice and the Blade,” she introduced the partnership versus dominator models of social organization. She received the Humanist Pioneer Award, and in conversation with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Eisler emphasized the urgent need for humanists to focus on values-based systems and the transformative power of caring economics. Drawing on neuroscience and history, she argues that Peace begins at home and calls for a shift in worldview to build more equitable, sustainable, and compassionate societies rooted in connection rather than control. The three books of hers of note that could be highlighted are The Chalice and the Blade—now in its 57th U.S. printing with 30 foreign editions, The Real Wealth of Nations, and Nurturing Our Humanity: How Domination and Partnership Shape Our Brains, Lives, and Future (Oxford University Press, 2019).
Scott Douglas Jacobsen interviews Riane Eisler on applying a partnership, whole-systems lens to science and economics. Eisler argues that science reflects cultural bias—invoking Galileo and gender myths—and notes that biology has corrected errors related to the ovum and fertilization. She critiques GDP for counting harm and ignoring caregiving and the value of nature, advancing Social Wealth Economic Indicators that prioritize care. Families and childhood are culturally embedded; punitive norms normalize violence, as recognized by the APA on spanking. She favours a universal basic income, plus caring policies, and Nordic legislatures. Rejecting “anything goes” relativism, Eisler grounds inquiry in human rights, caregiving, and environmental stewardship, urging a shift to partnership.
Interview conducted on September 27, 2025, in the afternoon.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are with the world-renowned Riane Eisler, lawyer and founder of partnership studies. We have a long list of topics, including science, philosophy of science, epistemology, ontology, and the intersection of science and the humanities. We will see if we cover them all or continue in another session. The plan, ambitiously, is to solve all the world’s problems in 45 minutes.
Partnership studies take a whole-systems approach to science. I want to distinguish this from the term “holistic,” which is common in the United States and often carries vague or non-technical connotations. “Whole systems” is preferable because it points to a more analytic framework. From a whole-systems perspective, how can partnership studies provide a much-needed facelift to scientific methodology?
Riane Eisler: We have all been taught certain assumptions, consciously and unconsciously—including scientists. Despite claims of objectivity, scientists are influenced by their cultural backgrounds. Viewed through the partnership–domination social scale, modern science shows cultural biases. People who perceived reality differently from the scientific establishment—Galileo Galilei, for example—were punished. His defence of heliocentrism led to a trial by the Roman Inquisition and house arrest. That illustrates how institutional power can police “acceptable” reality.
Dogmas, including those of the church, influenced intellectual life for centuries, especially regarding gender. The Adam and Eve narrative is one example. In earlier Mediterranean traditions, serpents were often linked to wisdom and renewal. At Delphi, the priestess known as the Pythia delivered oracles at a sanctuary mythically tied to the serpent Python. In Minoan Crete, figurines of a “snake goddess” depict a female figure holding snakes—symbols of power and cult practice. In that context, Eve consulting a serpent signified access to knowledge, not sin.
Later theocratic frameworks reinterpreted this symbolism. Eve’s exchange with the serpent became disobedience, punished by an omniscient male deity. Early natural philosophy and later scientific theories echoed cultural biases about women. Following Aristotle, many Western thinkers held that the male provided the “form” or active principle, while the female contributed only passive matter. Well into the 19th century, some scientists still assumed women contributed little beyond the womb. The human ovum was identified by Karl Ernst von Baer in 1827, and fertilization, as the fusion of egg and sperm, was demonstrated in the 1870s–1880s. These discoveries overturned the idea that women were merely containers.
Science, therefore, cannot be seen as a pure source of salvation. It has perpetuated, and continues to perpetuate, certain cultural dogmas. Not all science—ecology and environmental science, for example —recognizes Earth as an integrated system, but much of science still reflects the biases of its time.
The natural environment is the foundation of life; yet, human activities—such as carbon emissions from modern industrial technology—are accelerating destruction at a pace that the Earth cannot tolerate. In other words, we are destroying our natural habitat.
To evaluate these patterns, we need the partnership–domination social scale. Science, until recently, has done very little to examine family and childhood. Moreover, when it does, in psychology and neurology, it often pretends that families exist in a vacuum. However, families are embedded in cultures and subcultures.
Whether a family is violent and punitive or whether it avoids conflating caring with coercion depends on where it falls on the partnership–domination scale. This is linked to cultural norms—such as punishment. For example, when the American Psychological Association issued a statement condemning spanking, saying it harms children and normalizes violence, that was a significant step.
At our Peace Begins at Home Summit—and yes, you can still register at peacebeginsathomesummit.org.org—we emphasize this. Science must begin to uncover the biases we all carry. This is not about blame or shame. We have all inherited domination myths. Our task is to recognize them, because story and language are cornerstones of our work. Science tells stories, just as religion tells stories, and these stories shape what people think of as human nature.
Jacobsen: What about metrics like the Social Wealth Economic Indicators—ones that value care?
Eisler: At the Center for Partnership Systems, we launched the first iteration of such metrics. It was an early attempt, but it shows that care can and must be measured scientifically. For more information, please visit our website.
You can go to centerforpartnership.org, search for Social Wealth Economic Indicators—or SWEIs—and see our findings. Did we really make a difference? I believe we did. These metrics originated from my book, The Real Wealth of Nations: Creating a Caring Economics.
That book emphasized that both capitalism and socialism claim to be based on economics as a science. However, whether economics truly qualifies as a science is questionable, as some of its assumptions—such as the “rational man” model—are flawed. Neuroscience shows that people do not make choices as isolated rational actors. Our decisions are profoundly shaped by experiences and observations, especially in childhood. How we feel, think, act, and even vote is influenced by where our families, cultures, and subcultures fall on the partnership–domination scale.
We are in the process—though it is difficult—of recognizing that much of what we have been told is false. Stories about human nature, particularly those concerning male and female natures, are myths inherited from more rigid domination times. These myths have also influenced economics.
This brings me back to why new metrics are important, particularly those that account for the economic value of caring and caregiving. Capitalism and socialism both omitted these three life-sustaining sectors from what was considered “economics,” these are the natural economic sector, the household economic sector, and the volunteer community sector. Both capitalist and social theory dismiss them as reproductive rather than productive. This omission has made GDP, which perpetuates this spurious distinction between “reproductive” and “productive,” a highly problematic measure of economic health.
One of my favourite examples is the tree. In GDP terms, a tree in the natural economy is counted only when it is dead, when it becomes a log that can be bought and sold. As for caregiving, Adam Smith and Karl Marx—founders of the theoretical bases of capitalism and socialism—were products of their time. They assumed the work of caring for children, the elderly, the sick, and everyone else would be done for free by women in male-controlled households. That again was a highly problematic way of defining productivity.
GDP also counts harmful activities as “productive.” It includes the production and sale of fast food or cigarettes, and also accounts for the health costs and mortuary expenses associated with these products. This is why GDP is not only misleading but destructive as a measure of well-being. GDP cannot be used as an indicator of the harm we are inflicting on nature, our Mother Earth. Environmental disasters are intensifying, yet the damage they cause—as in the repair work they require—all count as GDP.
Jacobsen: Traditional frameworks, such as those from Adam Smith or Karl Marx, treat only “productive” labour as a component of GDP. The so-called externalities, such as environmental damage, are only included as the market costs for repair or mitigation. We have been taught to think of all this as logical, but fundamentally, it is illogical. It is like a bad insurance policy—superficially balanced but deeply misleading.
Eisler: The reality is that the human and material costs of not caring for our natural environment are immense. Social Wealth Economic Indicators address this by incorporating education for caregiving and offering rewards for caregivers. In current systems, caregiving only counts if it is in the market. The same work of caring for an ill person counts in GDP if you pay someone to do it, but not if a family member does it. That makes no sense.
Jacobsen: So let us take the science of care and calculation as an index. What is the approximate value, on average, in a standard advanced industrial economy with modern infrastructure?
Eisler: We have not entirely done the numbers, but a rough estimate would be immense. Organizations such as AARP have studied the economic value of family caregivers, and the contributions are enormous. The issue is not a lack of data but that our systems—accepted as measures of economic health—are entirely irrational.
Jacobsen: At ground level, or perhaps one stratosphere out, this connects to the philosophy of science. We are dealing with methodology and the assumptions embedded in it. How would a whole-systems approach to scientific methodology, in the same way that we incorporate care into the economy, make science more robust? For example, by acknowledging methodological errors or recognizing the integrative nature of systems, it is possible to improve a whole-systems model of philosophy of science. It first requires recognizing that the current system is irrational and misleading. It excludes the work of caring for people or nature unless that work is monetized for a profit. What is the mitigating approach?
Eisler: That was a perfect statement, by the way. There are several approaches to this problem. One is a universal basic income. I have changed my thinking on this. In The Real Wealth of Nations, I argued that it should be tied to caring, but the bureaucracy required would be overwhelming.
We published an article in the International Journal of Partnership Studies—a peer-reviewed online journal from the University of Minnesota, inspired by my work—about this issue. The bureaucratic burden of tracking and verifying family caregiving was too much. So I have concluded that a universal basic income is a good idea. It would set a minimum standard, and alongside it, we would need caring policies, such as universal healthcare, well-paid childcare, and intense training for caregivers.
This is not a fantasy. The Nordic nations have moved further toward partnership by ensuring that women make up about 40–50 percent of legislatures. Gender construction is a fundamental distinction between domination and partnership systems. Today, we see a regression toward domination in reaction to the advances of the past 300 years, as evidenced by movements for women’s rights, children’s rights, racial justice, anti-racism, environmental protection, Peace, and economic and social justice.
In domination systems, gender definitions are rigid and inflexible. Masculine is ranked above feminine, and anything in between is not tolerated. This enforces in-group versus out-group thinking. A whole-systems approach, by contrast, includes family and childhood, which are central. However, we receive information about these realities in fragmented pieces, without a unifying framework. Those pushing us back toward domination, however, use a coherent frame—one that includes controlling children and restricting their exposure.
We must not normalize violence and in-group versus out-group thinking. A partnership approach values diversity. Gender is central to the current regression. Economically, we see an incredible accumulation of wealth at the very top of the scale.
Language and story are also crucial. In a domination system, those in charge will not tolerate any narrative that undermines their control. This is all part of whole-systems analysis. It requires examining domination and partnership systems across childhood, gender, economics, story, and language.
Jacobsen: We should close with a favourite quote or a summary statement on science, philosophy of science, and partnership studies.
Eisler: We must re-examine everything. At the core of our religions, for example, are feminine teachings of caring, but overlaid with domination. In science, too, we must become aware of what truly matters in a whole-systems analysis. That analysis must include the whole of humanity—both its male and female halves—the whole of our lives, including family and intimate relations, and the whole of our history, including our prehistory..
Human prehistory shows millennia of partnership-oriented cultures. Domination systems emerged only five to ten thousand years ago, which is a very brief period in cultural evolutionary time. Understanding this changes the way people see the world and live in it.
If we believe that survival and thriving depend on moving toward a partnership paradigm, then we must actively accelerate this shift. I want to add that methodology, epistemology, and ontology—all these methods—carry assumptions. Recognizing and questioning them is part of the work.
One of the assumptions in whole-systems research using the partnership–domination social scale is that there are human rights standards. Not everything goes. Postmodernism, in claiming that there are no standards, essentially says anything goes. Without standards, people tend to revert to old patterns of domination. We must establish a new standard: one that respects human rights, fosters care, and promotes caregiving. That is built into the methodology.
Jacobsen: Thank you again for your time. I will see you next week.
Eisler: Thank you.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Phenomenon
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/20
Dr. Erica Kalkut, PhD, ABPP is Executive Clinical Director at LifeStance Health and leads Psychological and Neuropsychological Testing Services. A board-certified pediatric neuropsychologist, she specializes in developmental, cognitive, and emotional assessments. Her work integrates clinical practice, research, and advocacy to improve access and quality in pediatric behavioral health across diverse medical and neurological conditions. She notes that early mental health challenges often go unnoticed due to access barriers and children’s increasing ability to mask emotions. Parents can foster resilience and emotional intelligence by offering consistent, judgment-free presence and quality time. Schools must also play a role in identifying and intervening early. Kalkut advocates for daily device-free parent-child interactions and child-led, developmentally appropriate clinical approaches to promote healthy emotional development in today’s fast-paced, tech-driven society.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What are the essential emotional and psychological needs of children today?
Dr. Erica Kalkut: Children, as always, need to feel a sense of belonging and stability. In order to develop a healthy self esteem, they need to be able to feel cared for by their loved ones. However, children today are also seeking acceptance and interest from a much larger circle outside of their immediate family, friends, and trusted adults. Feeling relevant and connected to a larger virtual world has been increasingly important to how today’s youth develop their emotional wellbeing.
Jacobsen: Across inpatient, outpatient, and sub-acute settings, what are common gaps in children’s mental health supports?
Kalkut: Access continues to be an issue, as many parents report that they have difficulty connecting with a trusted therapist or mental health professional. Children have also become increasingly skilled at masking their concerns, perhaps in part because of their digital interactions, which can be a barrier to making expected progress once they receive intervention.
Jacobsen: How can parents and caregivers foster resilience and emotional intelligence?
Kalkut: Being present, available, and open to your children should remain as top priorities for parents. Showing your child that you will listen to them and be there for them, no matter their flaws or imperfections, is one of the best ways to foster resilience and promote emotional development. This is also important to counterbalance social media, which on the contrary, your child is learning only accepts certain images or impressions that your child portrays even if this is not their authentic selves.
Jacobsen: What is the role of educational institutions in promoting strong mental health?
Kalkut: Many children show resilience, even when their mental health is suffering, and their first signs of struggle often appear at school. Schools need to not only know how to look for signs that indicate that a child is struggling, but also how to intervene with that child and their family in order to increase mental health.
Jacobsen: What are early signs a child may be struggling with mental health issues?
Kalkut: Changes in behavior, thinking, reactions, and social engagement are common signs that a child has psychological needs. However, there are often physical indications like changes in appetite, sleep, aches, and pains that show up. It is hard because many of these signs, when they are mild or transient, are also common during childhood and adolescence. Parents should look to see if there is a pattern, however, and follow their gut if they believe their child is behaving or responding in ways that seem out of character. It is always better to err on the side of checking in with your child or talking with a professional should you have concerns.
Jacobsen: How have digital and parasocial relationships affected children’s interpersonal skills and emotional regulation?
Kalkut: (see above answers).
Jacobsen: What practical strategies are recommended for a mentally healthy home environment?
Kalkut: In an increasingly busy world, make sure to carve out 1:1 time with your children every day. This is not just taking your child to their activities or getting them through their routine—it means carving out time to truly be present with your child each day, with no devices or distractions. Even 5 minutes can be impactful, but ideally 15 minutes to play a game, have a conversation, go for a walk, sing a song, or do something silly and unexpected together can help you and your child to feel connected! It is a 5-to-15-minute investment into their emotional health (and yours).
Jacobsen: How do you ensure clinical practices are child-centred and developmentally appropriate?
Kalkut: Approach conversations with openness and curiosity so that the child can lead the way and share how they are thinking about things.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Phenomenon
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/20
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.
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.
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.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Phenomenon
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/20
An interview with Dr. Margena A. Christian. She discusses: geographic, cultural, and linguistic family background; influence on development; influences and pivotal moments in early life; founding and owning DocM.A.C. write Consulting; building and maintaining a client base; being a lecturer at the University of Illinois at Chicago; the dissertation and original interest in it; being a senior editor and senior writer for EBONY and other publications and initiatives; abilities, knowledge, and skills developed from the experience; interest in education, fashion, finance, health, medicine, parenting, relationships, religion, and spirituality; covering the death of Michael Jackson; advice for journalists; advice for girls; advice for women in general; advice for African-American women; advice for professional women; greatest emotional struggle in personal life; greatest emotional struggle in professional life; nicest thing someone’s ever done for you; meanest thing someone’s ever done to you; source of drive; upcoming collaborative projects; upcoming solo projects; and final feelings or thoughts.
Interview with Dr. Margena A. Christian: Distinguished Lecturer, University of Illinois at Chicago; Founder and Owner
1. Jacobsen: In terms of geography, culture, and language, where does your familial background reside?
Dr. Margena A. Christian: I was born and raised in St. Louis, Missouri. Appropriately so, I made my entrance into the world at Christian Hospital on the city’s north side, where I resided until I relocated to Chicago in 1995 when hired by Johnson Publishing Company. My mother’s side of the family was African American and Cherokee Indian. They were from Arkansas. My father’s side of the family was African American and German. I don’t know much about them except that his grandmother was, as my mom often said, “full-blooded German” and that a great portion of his family distanced themselves from the others after deciding to “pass” as White. I grew up in what I considered a pretty traditional African-American, working-class family. My mom was a librarian and media specialist; my dad was an inspector at General Motors.
2. Jacobsen: How did this influence development?
Christian: Growing up in St. Louis was an interesting experience. There is much division there between African Americans and Whites. I lived on the city’s north side, which is predominantly Black. I attended a Catholic grade school, Most Holy Rosary, and a Catholic high school, Cardinal Ritter College Preparatory, with people who looked like me. When I went to St. Louis University (SLU), a Jesuit institution, it was a major adjustment. During this time there were few people that attended who looked like me. I can still recall often being in classes where I was the only African American. Going from being around my own 24/7 and then moving into a world where I was suddenly the only “one,” took some getting used to. I can say that I had a pleasant time as a Billiken at SLU. I worked hard and made stellar grades so I stood out for more reasons than one. And, needless to say, I hardly ever missed class because the professor always seemed to notice.
3. Jacobsen: What about influences and pivotal moments in major cross-sections of life such as kindergarten, elementary school, junior high school, high school, undergraduate studies (college/university), and graduate studies?
Christian: As previously mentioned, my mom was a teacher. When I attended kindergarten, it was at the same school where she taught. For some reason I didn’t feel the need to work as hard because mom was there. In some ways I felt privileged over the other students. From that experience, my mom learned that it wasn’t such a good thing to work at the same school with your kid. I was headed to the third grade when my parents decided to take me out of the St. Louis Public School System and have me attend an Archdiocesan school. She didn’t feel that my siblings and I were getting the best education, so she convinced our dad to allow us to transfer to Catholic schools.
I attended a co-ed high school that was considered one of the best private, Catholic schools in an urban area. That’s where my life changed after taking a leadership class with Sister Barbara. She knew how much I loved to write and told me about the Minority Journalism Workshop, sponsored by the Greater St. Louis Association of Black Journalists. The program was designed for juniors and seniors in high school and early college students. I was a sophomore when I applied and got accepted. Renowned journalists George E. Curry and Gerald Boyd were founders of this pioneering workshop, which would become the blueprint for other minority journalism workshops throughout the country.
Training with professional journalists at such a young age helped to hone my craft and solidify my desire to do this for a living. I won scholarships two years in a row and had my first article published. Nothing beats hands-on experience. I didn’t write for the school paper at SLU, because I didn’t feel comfortable as “the only one.” Instead, I returned to my roots and did an internship at the city’s top African-American publication, the St. Louis American Newspaper. Later I wrote for a newsmagazine called Take Five. Building one’s clips is critical. I had an attractive portfolio with a range of stories to show.
However, coming from a family of educators, I did what most people who aspire to become a journalist do. I played it safe and got a job as an English teacher at a Catholic grade school, Bishop Healy. So, essentially, I taught by day and wrote by night. Healy was in the city and practiced the Nguzo Saba value system. When I reflect on my life, I see that I was being prepared. Concepts in my dissertation were the Nguzo Saba to show pioneering publisher John H. Johnson’s commitment to his race when documenting our history in magazines.
4. Jacobsen: You founded and own DocM.A.C. write Consulting. It provides a number of services including editing, professional development, proofreading, writing services, and so on. What is the importance of these services to the clientele?
Christian: People always seek those who can fine tune and polish their writing, editing and proofreading. Educators need to remain current with pedagogical strategies so professional development is one way to achieve this. I also do dissertation coaching. Thus far I’ve helped two people complete their dissertation. The coursework is the easy part; the hard part is crossing the finish line by submitting the dissertation! There’s a great deal of folks who are ABD (all but dissertation) who need the right push to move along. That’s what I do.
5. Jacobsen: How does one build and maintain a client base?
Christian: Building and maintaining a client base, for me, comes from word of mouth and networking. Most of my clients were referred by other clients and/or people who know my work.
6. Jacobsen: You are a lecturer at the University of Illinois at Chicago. What tasks and responsibilities come with this position?
Christian: I teach an Academic Writing I course, considered freshman composition, in English. Recently UIC started a professional writing concentration as a minor. I was hired to help build the program. Thus far I developed and designed two courses: Writing for Digital and New Media and Advanced Professional Writing. One thing I enjoy most about being a lecturer is that the focus is on teaching and not so much research. If I choose to conduct more or to write journal articles, it is optional and not mandatory. Each semester I teach three different courses, so my prep time is far reaching. Thanks to my organizational skills, I make it work effortlessly.
7. Jacobsen: Your dissertation was titled John H. Johnson: A Historical Study on the Re-Education of African Americans in Adult Education Through the Selfethnic Liberatory Nature of Magazines. What was the original interest in this subject matter?
Christian: I didn’t simply read about how John H. Johnson helped to make history. I helped him to write it. I was hired by the man himself in 1995, when I started as an assistant editor for the weekly publication Jet magazine. When Mr. Johnson, as we lovingly called him, died in 2005, I saw how things changed the following year with new people in place to run the iconic publications. Let’s just say that I knew that one day the magazine and the company as I once knew it would be no more. It hit me that there would come a time when people won’t remember or know anything about a man who lived named John H. Johnson. It struck me that one day people won’t know about his iconic publications. It hit me that the house that he once built at 820 S. Michigan Avenue would no longer exist. I realized I was the bridge between the old and the new. I was the last editor hired by Mr. Johnson and worked along his side who remained at the company before my position was eliminated in 2014. My position ended the same week that Jet magazine ended. History was being rewritten and it was bittersweet.
For instance, a man named Simeon Booker led the ground-breaking coverage for the tragic 1955 Emmett Till story. I did the modern-day, follow-up coverage, beginning in 2004, when the body was exhumed and the case reopened. It was an honor to have Booker hand me the baton and for Mr. Johnson to have approved it. After a series of stories that I penned for a few years, I concluded that chapter in my life and the magazine’s annals by purchasing a beautiful oil painting of Till (shown in image) that was done by a fellow JPC employee, Raymond A. Thomas.
8. Jacobsen: What was the main research question? What were the main findings of the doctoral research?
Christian: The main research question was how did John H. Johnson use his magazines in adult education to combat intellectual racism. The main findings were that not only did he educate his own race but he educated all races, all over the world.
9. Jacobsen: You were a Senior Editor and Senior Writer for EBONY, editor of Elevate, Features Editor for Jet, and assisted in the inauguration of EBONY Retrospective. What were these initiatives?
Christian: Features editor was a position where I was charged with pitching, writing and editing human interest stories. I also assisted with selecting and securing high-profile figures for cover subjects. Elevate was a section in EBONY that focused on health, wellness and spirituality. EBONY’s Retrospective was an opportunity for me to marry my love of entertainment with my interest in historical data by examining pivotal cultural moments in music, movies and TV that shaped my race.
10. Jacobsen: What abilities, knowledge, and skills were developed from them?
Christian: In addition to building an amazing list of contacts, I mastered the art of multi-tasking and learned the importance of having steady relationships. It’s not about who you know but who knows you and returns your call. On the flip side, in terms of production, Jet magazine was a weekly publication so I had less than a week to meet a deadline. This included tracking down sources, doing research, conducting interviews, writing stories and editing. Early on I handled images for both EBONY and Jet by operating the Associated Press photo machine, including breaking it down and cleaning what was called the oven. Moving to EBONY in 2009 offered me a bit more time to work on lengthy features. The Retrospective pieces were supposed to only be 1,500 words, but I would gather such wonderful information that I would force their hand at close to 3,000 words!
11. Jacobsen: You write on education, fashion, finance, health, medicine, parenting, relationships, religion, and spirituality. What is the source of interest in these topics?
Christian: My professional career began at Jet magazine. The weekly newsmagazine required that all editors write about every subject. My specialty was entertainment. During my interview with Mr. Johnson and his daughter, Linda, in 1995, I expressed an interest in “writing about the stars” for EBONY. I recalled being told by Mr. Johnson that rank determined who would talk to the notables at EBONY, so he thought Jet would be a better fit since all editors had an equal chance of doing stories about celebs. Later, I was asked to write solely about health. I wasn’t excited about this notion but it ended up being a blessing in disguise. I secretly began to enjoy writing about this subject. Now I’m at UIC, a top research institution that is renowned for its hospitals and clinics.
12. Jacobsen: You spearheaded on-the-ground coverage of the death of Michael Jackson (“King of Pop”). What was that experience like for you?
Christian: This was a difficult time for me but I had a job to do. This opportunity also came during an interesting time of transition at the company. I helped to document some history for this but not as much as I would have liked. Some people only wanted to hear salacious stories and could care less about him as a man more than him as an artist. That bothered me. Nonetheless, I was busy and exhausted. I spent three weeks in Los Angeles, spending time at the Jackson family’s Encino compound, camped outside with the hundred other reporters from around the world, and driving for hours to Los Olivos to visit Neverland.
I met a man during a church prayer service named Steve Manning, who was one of his best friends who first ran the Jacksons fan club back in the day. We still keep in touch. A year after Michael’s death, Steve was at the Jackson’s home and allowed me to speak with Michael’s mom, Katherine. I didn’t quite know what to say because it was the weekend before Mother’s Day, her first without him. Janet once sent me a Christmas card, which I still have.
The Jackson family grew up at Johnson Publishing Company and were close friends with Mr. Johnson. I felt honored when I was selected by the managing editor, Terry Glover, to document this important history. She knew what I brought to the table and that I would deliver.
13. Jacobsen: Any advice for journalists?
Christian: I would encourage them to read, to write, to read, to write. Find a mentor who can guide you and know that building relationships are critical in this profession.
14. Jacobsen: Any advice for girls?
Christian: The advice I have for girls is to discover your passion and then you’ll find your purpose. Ask yourself, “What would I do for the rest of my life even if I never got paid to do this?” That’s usually your answer.
15. Jacobsen: Any advice for women in general?
Christian: General advice I have for women is to follow that still, quiet voice from within whenever it comes to making any type of decision. Trust your instinct and be patient. You can’t miss what is meant for you.
16. Jacobsen: Any advice for African-American women?
Christian: The advice I have for African-American women is to never forget that you are a queen. Wear your crown with pride and know that you are wonderfully and divinely created.
17. Jacobsen: Any advice for professional women?
Christian: Always have multiple streams of income. Do not rely upon one job and remember that no one works harder for you than you can work for yourself.
18. Jacobsen: What seems like the greatest emotional struggle in personal life?
Christian: The greatest emotional struggle in personal life is realizing that people will disappoint because they are human.
19. Jacobsen: What seems like the greatest emotional struggle in professional life?
Christian: The greatest emotional struggle in professional life is being so passionate about making certain that my students learn and that my stories educate, enlighten and uplift.
20. Jacobsen: What’s the nicest thing someone’s ever done for you?
Christian: My sister and a few close friends gave me a surprise graduation party after I earned my doctorate. I don’t like surprises and I don’t get fooled easily, but they managed to do a splendid job of knocking me off my feet. I was very touched.
21. Jacobsen: What’s the meanest thing someone’s ever done to you?
Christian: People did things to be mean but now I look at those encounters as part of divine order. I always remember that rejection is God’s protection. I also know that what people intended for harm was designed to help and push me into my purpose. So, mean things weren’t done to me, only things that were MEANt to grow me.
22. Jacobsen: What drives you?
Christian: Faith and passion drive me.
23. Jacobsen: Any upcoming collaborative projects?
Christian: No upcoming collaborative projects as of now.
24. Jacobsen: Any upcoming solo projects?
Christian: I am preparing to turn my dissertation into a book. One of the country’s larger and most distinguished university presses picked it up. I am beyond thrilled to take this story into the academy. This was a full-circle moment. We keep someone’s legacy alive by educating future generations.
25. Jacobsen: Any feelings or thoughts in conclusion?
Christian: Trust the process and always keep the faith. In the words of the Hon. Marcus Garvey, “Onward and upward.”
26. Jacobsen: Thank you for your time, Dr. Christian.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Phenomenon
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/20
Jacobsen: Was there any mission in your historical past—thus far—that you’ve simply 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 1970s. 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, sufficiently too—effectively, I do know Neil. I do know Invoice Nye. They’re fantastic. I don’t assume they’re as fair as their duty demands. 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 a 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 CT—Headway 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 strain.
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.
Jacobsen: Sure. That was the period of iconic film strains.
Rockman: Sure.
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 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 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.
Jacobsen: Sure.
Jacobsen: Thanks very a lot on your time. I respect your experience.
Rockman: Pleasure.
Jacobsen: Good assembly you. Bye-bye.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Phenomenon
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/20
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 bring 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’ 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 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 much 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.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Phenomenon
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/20
Alexis Rockman, an up-to-date American artist born in 1962, discusses his fascination with natural history, sparked by early visits to the American Museum of Natural History. He reflects on influences like King Kong and Bride of Frankenstein, and shares his views on science communication, AI artwork, and environmental activism. Rockman critiques market-driven journalism, celebrates Stephen Jay Gould and E.O. Wilson, and offers a skeptical but hopeful outlook on the longer term. With humour and honesty, he explores inventive process, despair over climate inaction, and the enduring need for storytelling grounded in scientific and ecological consciousness.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So right at this moment, we are right here with Alexis Rockman. Born in 1962, he is 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 Natural History, the place his mom briefly labored as an assistant to anthropologist Margaret Mead’s secretary, ignited his fascination with natural history. 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 Natural History. 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 Natural History 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 Natural History 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 1930s. 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’s 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 Life 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.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Phenomenon
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/20
Professor Benjamin Karney is a Professor of Social Psychology at UCLA and the co-director of the UCLA Marriage and Close Relationships Lab. His research focuses on the impact of external stressors on intimate relationships, especially in early marriage. Karney has extensively studied low-income, Latinx, Black, and White newlywed couples and military marriages.
Karney discusses couples’ challenges in maintaining intimacy, noting that external factors and personality traits, such as conscientiousness and neuroticism, influence relationship success. He emphasizes the importance of being responsive to a partner’s individual needs. Karney also highlights the difficulty of maintaining perspective in relationships and advises giving partners the benefit of the doubt while recognizing that not all relationships are worth sustaining.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: We are here with Professor Benjamin Karney or Ben Karney. What do you prefer?
Professor Benjamin Karney: Ben is shorter. Both are accurate.
Jacobsen: I’ll go with Ben because it’s shorter. I remember interviewing James Flynn before he passed. I asked him, “What do you prefer to be called?” He said, “What do you prefer to call me?” I said, “Jim.” So, Jim, it was.
Karney: Ben is fine. Ben is what my friends call me.
Jacobsen: Ben is great. So, what is your role at the university? Why did you choose this particular area of expertise and research? Then, we can dive into the main discussion.
Karney: So, those are two questions. The shorter answer is that I am a psychology professor and the chair of the social psychology area within the psychology department. I’m also the co-director of the UCLA Marriage and Close Relationships Lab. I’ve been studying intimate partnerships in couples for about 35 years. What got me into the field was caring a lot about intimate relationships and noticing that they seem difficult for even good, thoughtful people to maintain.
I was young when I got into it, and I remember thinking, “Gee, I hope I don’t get divorced.” Everyone in the world hopes that, and yet many people do. So, there’s a real mystery around intimacy, especially in marriage. People enter marriage thinking, “I want this to work,” and they give it their all. Yet, many people get divorced anyway, which is an undesired outcome.
And that’s mysterious. People don’t predict they’ll get divorced. Nobody gets married hoping or thinking they’ll get divorced, yet so many do. So, that means something unexpected happens in intimacy that people themselves don’t fully understand. That’s one of the reasons I wanted to study it.
And 35 years later, I’m still working on it. It’s an enduring question. That’s how I got into it.
Jacobsen: Your work is recognized. You have over 20,000 citations, a significant metric for the impact of your research in academia.
Karney: I hope that’s true. I don’t fool myself into thinking that my work will solve divorces or breakups. Still, I do hope it helps people feel more informed about relationships. If no one else has been helped, I know I have been. I am more informed. However, it didn’t save me. I’ve been married, but I was married once before and got divorced—as a marital researcher.
I knew the field. I knew all the literature. I knew all the things you’re supposed to do. I had already written a book on intimate relationships. I’d written the book on intimate relationships, but my relationships could have been better. My first marriage could have been better.
Jacobsen: And what are some of the lessons from your work?
Karney: One of the big lessons, in particular, is that not everything about your intimate relationship is within your control. There are many forces external to the couple that are easy to overlook but play a very important role in a couple’s ability to maintain intimacy over time.
Jacobsen: I have two questions. First, I want to consider intrinsic and extrinsic factors. So, let’s start with an expert opinion: Are there some people for whom relationships are not suited in terms of their temperament over the arc of their lives?
Karney: Yes, undoubtedly. Much research shows that some people are better at intimacy than others. The individual’s stable qualities are associated with more success in intimate relationships.
The question you asked is, are there some people who don’t want relationships? And, undoubtedly, there are. Some people don’t want relationships for various reasons. Either their personal experiences with relationships have been negative, so they decide, “I don’t want it anymore.” Or their personal experiences with closeness and dependence on others have been so fraught and painful that they’ve learned to avoid other people.
There are plenty of people who don’t want relationships. Others want relationships but, for various reasons, aren’t well-equipped to handle what relationships require. People with a history of depressive episodes have a harder time in relationships. People struggling with substance abuse have harder times in relationships.
People who are prone to feeling negative emotions—those who are stably negative—are also known as having high negative affectivity or neuroticism. On average, people who score high on that trait tend to have worse relationships. People have different attachment styles, and those who are insecurely attached have a harder time in relationships.
Some qualities affect your ability to have a positive or negative relationship. Some people are great at relationships and generally do better in any relationship because they are easygoing, don’t tend to dwell on negative emotions, are generally not defensive, and are mentally healthy.
They may have had good experiences in the past, so they trust relationships overall. A long list of stable individual qualities contributes to more or less relationship success.
Jacobsen: Now, shifting to a more constructive and positive frame, which will be a useful part of this series: What are some of the bases for those traits intrinsic to the individual, not necessarily external forces?
Karney: If we focus on individual qualities that contribute to successful intimacy, we first need to define it.
Jacobsen: What is intimacy? What is the challenge? What is the process by which an individual quality can either facilitate or inhibit intimacy?
Karney: There have been many definitions of intimacy. Where I come from, as a social psychologist, intimacy has been defined as a process in which partners are appropriately responsive to each other’s disclosures. I credit this to a famous social psychologist named Harry Reis—R-E-I-S. He’s a genius, still alive, and a leader in the field.
Some decades ago, he developed the intimacy process model. He said intimacy isn’t about how much I share with you or how well you listen to me. No. Intimacy is a dyadic process where one partner discloses something—it could even be a nonverbal disclosure—and the other responds somehow. Intimacy is furthered when that response makes the first person, the discloser, feel understood, validated and cared for.
That process differs for each couple because the things that make me feel understood, validated, and cared for might differ from those that make me feel understood, validated, and cared for. When intimacy is working, each partner understands the other well enough to respond in a way that makes the other person feel understood, validated, and cared for. Let me give you an example.
I come home from work and say, “Boy, I had a rough day at work today.” Now, you have an opportunity to respond. You might say, “You had a rough day at work. Come here on the couch. Tell me all about it. I will wrap you in a blanket of love and care for you. I’ll give you a back rub. I’m here for you.”
Now, for some people, that would be the perfect response. It’s exactly what they want—to be soothed and blanketed with love. If I’m that person, your response makes me feel understood, validated and cared for. Intimacy is enriched. But there might be other people for whom that is the wrong response.
When I say I had a bad day at work, I might need to decompress alone, to be in my “cave,” needing some space. I suggest you handle things around the house so that I can have time to myself. In that case, if I’m that person and you respond with, “Let me blanket you with love,” you are making the problem worse. I’m already feeling overwhelmed, and now you’re overwhelming me. I do not feel understood, validated, or cared for.
The intimacy process model says it’s not behaviour that leads to intimacy. Intimacy sometimes looks different for every couple. It’s about being responsive to your partner’s needs and way of being. Being responsive to your partner is the key to intimacy—being aware of what your partner personally needs in the moment.
Jacobsen: So, if that’s intimacy, what qualities make someone good at that?
Karney: All right, let me dive into that.
So, there are lots of different ways to approach that. You can approach it from the lens of personality theory. Personality theorists say, “Hey, people have different traits.” You may have heard of the Big Five personality traits.
The idea is that there are five big personality traits, and some of them are more associated with successful relationships than others. For example, I am highly conscientious, a personality trait that captures doing what is appropriate. In that case, I will consider what would be appropriate. I’ll be attuned to your needs, to your ups and downs.
Being highly conscientious makes me better at being responsive to you when needed. Indeed, highly conscientious people tend to have better relationships. Now, imagine that I have a different personality trait—neuroticism. Neuroticism is a general tendency to feel negative emotional states.
Let’s say I come home after a bad day at work, and I’m high in neuroticism. It might be hard for anything you do to penetrate my general tendency to feel bad. You might be unable to make me feel understood, validated, or cared for. No one in the world might have that ability because my tendency to feel negative mood states is so strong. In this case, what might make another couple feel closer doesn’t make us feel closer because my personality doesn’t allow it.
Or, your personality might affect how you respond to me when I come home and say I’m stressed. Let’s say you’ve had great experiences with closeness and intimacy. You’re comfortable with closeness and intimacy—a disposition you carry. When I say I’ve had a bad day, your response might be that you need me, and that’s great. You love being needed. It feels good to be needed, so you lean in, figure out what I need, and give it to me.
But what if you’re a different person? What if you’ve had relationships with overbearing people or relationships where you were abused, taken advantage of, or exploited in the past? You carry that history with you, which might make you wary of people asking you for things. It might make you mistrust people with needs. So, when I come home and say, “Whoa, I’ve had a bad day,” you hear that I need something. You might think, “Oh no, don’t come to me with your needs.” Your personality or history might lead you to respond with, “Well, that’s your problem,” or “I’ve also had a bad day—what do you want me to do about it?” That response wouldn’t make me feel understood, validated, or cared for.
If we understand the process, we can imagine how the individual differences both partners bring to the situation can either facilitate or inhibit it.
Jacobsen: On balance, are there more functional or dysfunctional ways to have a relationship?
Karney: There’s an infinite number of functional ways and an infinite number of dysfunctional ways. But your question reminds me of a famous quote by Tolstoy—I believe it’s the first line of Anna Karenina. The line is, and I might be misquoting it, “All happy families are alike; all unhappy families are unhappy in their way.” This quote gets cited a lot in my field because, generally speaking, it’s wrong.
It’s the opposite—the truth is that unhappiness in a couple typically looks the same. You’ve probably heard of John Gottman and his “Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.” If you’re in an unhappy relationship, you’re likely to experience withdrawal, anger, contempt, or rigidity. That’s exactly right. All unhappy couples are withdrawn, angry, contemptuous, or rigid, but you can be happy in many ways. There are many ways that couples figure out how to be happy.
Some couples say, “Hey, we will do separate things, and that’s okay. We’re going to live parallel lives.” Some couples are intertwined like two pieces of yarn, and that’s what they need to be happy. And that’s okay. There are many different ways to be happy in a relationship. But unhappy relationships all look very familiar and similar.
Jacobsen: Last question. What is a significant or the most significant factor for people to work on—something that isn’t part of their intrinsic personality structure, something they didn’t get from inheritance or early development—that can help increase the odds of staying together in a long-term relationship if that’s what they want?
Karney: I appreciate the question: A relationship is worth sustaining if it’s what you want. Not everyone wants that. And I’m not a therapist—I’m a scientist. I’m not really in the advice business. But if I had to offer advice based on my research, I’d say: You can’t control what happens to you, but you can try to attend to it.
It’s easy to focus on what our partners are doing now. Suppose our partner is letting us down, disappointing us, or frustrating us. In that case, it’s easy to get mad at them because the context that might explain their behaviour is usually invisible to us. Maybe our partner had a bad day. Maybe they had a bad experience 20 years ago that makes it hard to do what they’d love to do today.
Trying to keep that context in mind is a heavy lift. It takes work. But making the effort to give our partners the benefit of the doubt can be worthwhile—at least in decent relationships. In a terrible relationship, you shouldn’t give your partner the benefit of the doubt. If your partner is abusing you, you don’t need to do that—you should get mad.
But in a regular, decent relationship, it’s useful to make an effort to ask yourself, “Why is my partner disappointing me? Where is that coming from?” Suppose you can remember that your partner is a good person with a good heart who may have just had a bad day or experience. In that case, it’s often easier to return from anger, get over it, and move on with the connection.
Jacobsen: Ben, thank you for your time today on this quick blitz call.
Karney: It’s a blitz! If you need anything else, reach out.
Jacobsen: Excellent. Thanks so much. Take care.
Karney: Bye-bye. See you, Scott.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/12/14
Instanativity,
“Kronkronhinko,”
I wish I could show you.
Hold, hands,
Hold, nevermind,
the Never Mind,
But Ayub Ogada of all dead people?
Yes, I didn’t expect this either.
You don’t leave others behind;
you leave parts of your Self behind,
to leave is to renew,
Neuveaux, you.
You are a worldline.
Deadlight’s limelight,
Here one second,
Gan the next.
Alteternity isn’t the question.
It’s gnat an answer aether.
It’s bathes.
All tilts and rolls in the backsy-forthy.
What’s re-cursed with no time?
Encourage ass whisper,
sometimes,
icescream tit others,
Lovable bubble-able
Lilt and tilt,
Livia pluriabell, eh?
No.
To the hilt,
Upsies downzzzs the Frasia Riva, plenty beautiful,
where two pretty, where argh use?
Shem and Shaun,
Hen eh haw,
Horsey, hee and ha,
To laugh, divine,
Nun to None,
To smile, all inside mine,
Fem to faun,
All deux time in duh world:
Two ways,
so three paths:
where you were,
what you chose,
what you didn’t.
You ever seen branches,
Branching inward as a drain,
Watered by their own history,
Eventually choked out in confusion,
Gasping for air?
Subject and Object:
When the subject is an object,
The object is still an object;
When the object is a subject,
The subject and object are subjective objects.
Welcome to we, the Universe,
ephemeral and uncaring;
Dreamwatcher.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Humanists International
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/18
Masereka Solomon talks about Abrimac Secular Services, a secular organization dedicated to education and community development in Uganda.
He discusses the challenges of operating in a predominantly religious education system, the need for secular learning spaces, and the financial limitations they face. He talks about efforts to provide scholastic materials, food assistance, and critical thinking training through collaborations like one with Dr. Christopher DiCarlo. He talks about misconceptions surrounding secular education and how Abrimac continues advocating for inclusive, evidence-based learning, focusing on reducing suffering and improving access to essential educational resources.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What is new with Abrimac Secular Services? What is going on?
Masereka Solomon: Abrimac Secular Services is a secular organization registered as a company limited by guarantee. Our primary mission is to support education and community development by identifying challenges and proposing practical solutions. Additionally, we are educators dedicated to improving learning conditions.
Most of our members are teachers. With extensive experience in the education sector, we understand the backgrounds of the students we teach and the challenges teachers face. The issues in schools extend beyond our immediate workplaces; they are widespread across many institutions. Many students come from underprivileged backgrounds, and even teachers themselves often face financial difficulties.
Parents also struggle to provide for their children. As a result, we frequently step in to support learners who lack essential resources. For example, in a class of 50 mathematics students, only 10 may have access to a mathematical set, making effective learning difficult. Recognizing this, we organized ourselves to provide students with scholastic materials and other necessities, ensuring that more learners have what they need to succeed.
Beyond schools, Abrimac Secular Services is active in community outreach. The COVID-19 pandemic and lockdowns were tough times. Many teachers, as well as members of the broader community, lacked essential supplies like food. Movement restrictions further complicated the situation. In response, we mobilized resources and distributed food to those in need – we do manage a food bank, ensuring that support was accessible to anyone who required or asked for assistance. Abrimac is having several life saving projects, there’s also a water and soil conservation project where community members are given water tanks to trap rain water from their roofs as a way of checking soil erosion in mountainous areas and also help in having reliable clean water in homesteads – these are projects supported by private individuals and any other person is free to collaborate with us in providing a solution to world problems. We have several HIV patients who are struggling, they lack support in many ways. We reduce suffering regardless.
Jacobsen: Religion, politics, and education often intersect. Many of your educators work in challenging environments where religion is highly influential. When addressing social and educational problems, what challenges does religion create? What solutions do you propose?
Solomon: Religion plays a significant role in our society, and many educators in our network operate in environments where religious influence is strong. However, Abrimac Secular Services does not oppose religion itself; instead, we seek to address the challenges that arise when religious beliefs tend to create barriers to education and social progress.
For example, in schools like Kasese Humanist, students come from diverse religious backgrounds. Some issues we encounter include absenteeism due to religious obligations, restrictions on what can be taught in classrooms, and biases against secular education. Our approach is to promote inclusive and evidence-based learning while respecting individual beliefs.
Abrimac Secular Services remains committed to improving education, supporting teachers and students, and fostering a more equitable learning environment.
Jacobsen: What is the most important skill you teach students—critical thinking or something broader?
Solomon: Regarding critical thinking, I will share my perspective based on the environment I work in, humanist schools.
We approach critical thinking in different ways. At one point, we collaborated on a project with Dr. Christopher DiCarlo and Gail Miller once a president at AtheistAlliance International. I do not know if you are familiar with Dr. Christopher.
Jacobsen: Yes, I know him. I have interviewed him.
Solomon: I worked with him in 2017 on a critical thinking project. Through that initiative, we engaged learners and encouraged them to develop the ability to ask meaningful questions when faced with challenges, this has continued as a culture in our circles.
We emphasize inquiry-based learning, ensuring students are not discouraged from asking questions. Instead, we encourage them to engage in discussions and critical debates. We do not restrict learners from asking questions; we encourage them to pose complex, thought-provoking questions rather than just simple ones.
Jacobsen: What other collaborations have you done over the years? Not just with Christopher DiCarlo, but with others as well?
Solomon: We have had several collaborations with other individuals privately. We have engaged learners in sporting activities, acquired several sporting gears which overtime get worn out. Worked with Robert Nygren a soccer coach from Sweden, have worked late Mac Hoban from Austria on different projects, worked with Breanna from colorado on different life projects. Many individuals have privately supported our activities in the community.
What we are passing to the young ones is great human values like empathy, sharing, dignity, no war, conservation, no superstitions, tolerance, it’s not just critical thinking but good morals.
Jacobsen: What should those unfamiliar with Kasese understand about the challenges you face in teaching and promoting secularism? Additionally, what opportunities exist in this context?
Solomon: I will begin with the challenges. The challenges are numerous, but there are also many opportunities. One of the main challenges is the lack of a strong voice for the secular movement. In a place often categorized as part of the “third world,” the ability to speak up and advocate for progress is severely limited. The secular movement lacks financial support, directly affecting our ability to uplift communities and create meaningful change. Without proper funding, many necessary resources for schools and communities remain unattainable. As young people, it is tough to carry out initiatives that benefit others without external support.
However, there are significant opportunities as well. Many learners need support, and many schools require assistance in different ways, from infrastructure to extracurricular activities like sports. Classroom environments are often inadequate, and teachers lack essential teaching materials and motivation strategies. While these are challenges, they also represent opportunities for those who wish to contribute. There is a real need for assistance in improving the learning conditions for students and providing better resources for teachers. In this sense, the opportunity lies in advocacy and support for education – give a scholarship, buy a ball, buy books, buy a uniform for a boy or a girl, provide materials for teachers.
Jacobsen: Do you ever face pushback from the parents of students?
Solomon: Not really. There are no significant objections from the parents of the students we work with.
Jacobsen: What about from the wider community?
Solomon: There is no strong opposition at the moment. However, there was pushback in the past, mainly from people who did not understand what we were doing. Those who have not taken the time to observe our work sometimes make negative comments. But the parents who entrust us with their children have no issue with us. The resistance tends to come from individuals who are uninformed about what we do.
Jacobsen: What kinds of misconceptions do they have? What do they say?
Solomon: I will give an example. In Uganda, most schools and learning centers are founded on religious principles. Many schools are started by spiritual leaders—pastors, reverends, bishops, or church members. Religious institutions have historically played a dominant role in education. In contrast, the school we work with is a humanist school. It operates as a private institution and is not affiliated with any religious organization. This distinction sometimes leads to misunderstandings because people are so accustomed to religiously driven schools. Our approach, being rooted in secular values, is unfamiliar to some, which can result in skepticism from those who do not fully understand our mission.
Someone who is not religious started a school, and many people question this simply because they have never encountered such a model before. They struggle to understand that a school can exist without religious affiliation and that an institution can function without requiring students or teachers to engage in religious activities. Many people cannot conceive of an educational setting where learners are not expected to pray. This mindset challenges the community, as some members expect school administrators to incorporate religious activities into the curriculum. However, this contradicts the fundamental purpose of education.
We consistently explain to them that a school is not a preaching center; a school is a learning center. We cannot place religious symbols, such as a cross, in a classroom because even the students understand that such symbols belong in places of worship. If it is a church, there will be a cross. If it is a mosque, there will be a crescent. But this is a school; its role is to educate, not preach. Teachers are here to teach, not to promote religious beliefs. Those who engage with us critically or are open to listening understand this perspective very well.
Jacobsen: What aspect of this work means the most to you?
Solomon: What is most important to me is reducing suffering – through ensuring that struggling children keep in school and attain some skills for survival, ensuring that teachers welfare is checked – teachers are known to be the struggling professional but not in my presence at least there are several things that can help teachers get uplifted. From experience, the teachers are ignorantly made slaves by their managers and useless suppressive policies. When I say “surrounding myself,” I mean that in every environment I find myself, I was in, I want to improve it to help people find solutions to their problems. That matters most to me—helping those who genuinely need assistance. I have seen parents, teachers and students struggling.
Jacobsen: That’s excellent. I appreciate your time.
Solomon: Thank you, too.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The New Enlightenment Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/09
How does Jerry Coyne show that intelligent design fails scientific tests, and why does religiosity predict resistance to evolution?
Jerry Coyne is an American evolutionary biologist and emeritus professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago. A Harvard Ph.D. graduate under Richard Lewontin, Coyne is known for his speciation and evolutionary genetics research, focusing on Drosophila. He is a prominent public advocate for evolution, best known for his bestselling book Why Evolution Is True (2009) and Faith Versus Fact: Why Science and Religion Are Incompatible(2015). Coyne critiques creationism and intelligent design and maintains the influential “Why Evolution Is True“ blog. His work emphasizes the conflict between science and religious ideologies.
Coyne recounts how the 2005 Dover trial drew him into analyzing intelligent design, leading him to study Michael Behe, William Dembski, and the Discovery Institute. He argues intelligent design is religion styled as science and legally untenable. Coyne explains that resistance to evolution stems from religious commitments, not evidence, and that critiquing creationism is inseparable from presenting evolutionary facts. He praises Judge John E. Jones III’s ruling, reflects on H. L. Mencken’s acerbic legacy, and assesses pushback, from U.S. courts to Adnan Oktar. Coyne honors Daniel Dennett while affirming science and religion remain fundamentally incompatible.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with prominent humanist Jerry Coyne, who has done an outstanding job combating creationism, intelligent design, and related issues. Here’s a question: What was your first encounter with intelligent design and creationism and their assertions about the origin and evolution of life?
Prof. Jerry Coyne: It was around the time the Dover trial began. That was in 2005 when the book Of Pandas and People, an intelligent design textbook, was used in the Dover Area School District in Pennsylvania. I had been battling creationism for a long time, ever since I started teaching evolution in the mid-1980s. Still, I hadn’t paid much attention to intelligent design. Suddenly, it was all over the news, and a significant trial was underway—the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case.
I started reading up on it. I read Michael Behe’s book Darwin’s Black Box, followed by other works by William Dembski and other proponents of intelligent design. That’s how I educated myself on the subject. Although I use the word “educated” loosely, I don’t think there’s much genuine knowledge there. That’s how I learned about it. Soon after, I began writing on the topic. I wrote a comprehensive piece for The New Republic, which gained significant attention, and then I covered the trial for them.
I didn’t participate in the trial itself; they reserved participation for religious scientists to make a better impression, allowing them to say, “Yes, I believe in God, but I also accept evolution.” So, I wasn’t directly involved in the trial. I was pleased when Judge John E. Jones III issued his decision, stating that intelligent design is not science, which is true. His ruling was thorough and eloquent.
Jacobsen: This issue has a long and contentious legal history concerning creationism and teaching evolution in schools in the United States. My first introduction to this history was likely reading H. L. Mencken’s commentary on the Scopes Trial, which took place in 1925. His observations were sharp, intelligent, sarcastic, and sometimes mean-spirited. Still, disregarding the mean part, he was an astute observer of the trial’s conditions.
Coyne: They don’t write like that anymore. You rarely see journalists willing to be as ascerbic as Mencken. I’m an admirer of Mencken, too.
Jacobsen: So, when considering the legal history of science versus religious ideology in the U.S. court systems, why does this issue remain resolved in court rather than public opinion?
The reason is simple: it’s all about religion. As Jack Nicholson might say, “It’s religion, Jake.” I have never met a creationist who wasn’t motivated by religious beliefs—not one, with the possible exception of David Berlinski, an intelligent-design advocate who claims to be a nonbeliever. However, I’m not sure I believe that. He has a Jewish background, but every other creationist and creationist organization I’ve encountered have had religious motivations at its core.
As long as religion remains influential, it will continue to push for the inclusion of creationism in public education. A recent Gallup poll showed that the proportion of people who believe in naturalistic evolution, as taught in schools, is still only about one in four Americans, although that number gradually increases. The remainder is split, with approximately 32% supporting theistic evolution and 40% adhering to biblical creationism.
So that’s the way America stands. As long as people hold those opinions, they’re going to be offended if their children are being taught evolution in schools, and they’re going to take it to the courts. The Supreme Court has not ruled on intelligent design. The whole effort is dying in the courts because there has been no decision supporting the teaching of creationism.
It was struck down when they started teaching scientific creationism or promoting “equal time” for both. Finally, Judge Jones struck down the most sophisticated version of creationism, intelligent design. The Dover School District lost about $1,000,000 in legal fees defending its case. That’s why it hasn’t resurfaced in the courts—schools know they will lose. With the current Supreme Court, I’m a bit worried.
I was also worried about Trump as president. As far as I know, he hasn’t made any statements about creationism. Both presidential candidates needed to be asked if they accept evolution as a measure of their rationality and ability to accept evidence, but they weren’t. So, it’s still ongoing.
I don’t think it’s over in the courts. There might be another case, but I’m hopeful it’s done.
Jacobsen: The two foundational figures of the more sophisticated version of intelligent design are Michael Behe, with his concept of irreducible complexity—there might still be a statement on his department’s website acknowledging but distancing themselves from him—and William Dembski, with his idea of specified complexity. Those are essentially the two main pillars.
So, if I see any papers or arguments referencing both of those concepts, in that case, it signals a direct intellectual pipeline from intelligent design and creationism. Like you, I have not encountered anyone who argues for creationism without being motivated by religious beliefs. In North America, this typically means Christians, often Catholic or evangelical.
As a personal note, I grew up near Trinity Western University. They have a “Creationism Field Trip” course—either 600 or 6000 level. It’s advanced. They also hold campus discussions between old-earth and young-earth creationists. Dennis Venema, who was initially associated with intelligent design before shifting to evolutionary biology, is an exception.
Living in that community, I became aware that Trinity Western is the largest private university in Canada with an evangelical orientation. They even went to the Supreme Court over their covenant, which required everyone to sign and was considered anti-LGBTQ. They lost that case in 2018, and it was a major scandal. That’s a significant loss. It was overwhelming. I completely understand when I see these American cases and the cultural mindset surrounding them. Growing up where I did, when people mentioned Liberty University, it resonates as an almost exact parallel.
So, when you see these cases involving Michael Behe and William Dembski, they may have the wrong idea, but they aren’t completely misguided individuals. However, the motivation behind this push is obvious. Have you seen any further attempts, aside from these two ideas and individuals, proposing other alternatives that essentially stem from the same fundamental notion of, “Oh, God did it”?
Coyne: Well, there’s the Discovery Institute. I have not looked at it recently, but both Behe and Dembski are affiliated with it and have several other members. They used to have a branch focused on conducting experiments related to intelligent design. Still, as far as I know, nothing substantial has come out of it that supports their claims. It reinforces the idea that there’s no real substance there.
Behe is Catholic, and this isn’t coming from secular sources. Even on Wikipedia, you can find a statement from Dembski acknowledging that intelligent design doesn’t make sense without the concept of Jesus at its core. Although they remain silent about the designer’s identity, it’s clear that they imply it’s God. Dembski has suggested it could be a space alien, but that’s disingenuous; he has said that Jesus is central to this belief and is quite religious. Intelligent design, often called “creationism in a cheap tuxedo,” is essentially still a priest’s robe in disguise.
Jacobsen: Do you ever get pushback—not on the facts, evidence, or the validity of your arguments—but on your tone? People who position themselves as the “tone police,” saying that you come across too aggressively? H. L. Mencken might have faced this if he were writing today, perhaps to an even greater extent. People might say, “We appreciate the sophistication and flair of your language, but it’s too sharp, and you’re turning people off.” Do you get that kind of response?
Coyne: All the time, man. It’s because you cannot criticize religion, however indirectly, without it being perceived as an attack on religion itself. About 60 to 70 percent of Americans believe that God played a role in evolution, so if you make any statement about evolution, you inevitably have to touch on creationism. When I wrote my book Why Evolution Is True, I aimed for a mild tone; I didn’t want to offend religious people. But you can’t discuss the evidence for evolution without discussing the evidence against creationism.
It’s all interconnected. In the “one long argument” in On the Origin of Species, Darwin repeatedly addresses creationist ideas, acknowledging creationism as the alternative hypothesis to evolution. So, if you’re defending evolution, at some point, you have to critique creationism. When you do that, you’re challenging religious belief, and no matter how mild the critique, people will accuse you of using the wrong tone.
What they’re essentially saying is that you should shut up. One example is when I point out the existence of dead genes—we have, for example, three genes for making egg-yolk proteins in the human genome that are nonfunctional because we don’t make egg yolk anymore—so they’re remnants from our reptilian ancestors. Suppose you mention this to convince people that evolution is true. In that case, you must also ask why a creator would put nonfunctional genes in our genomes. Making this argument is thus a quasi-scientific discussion.
When arguing for evolution, you have to present your case while addressing the alternative, which means critiquing creation. That gets people defensive and makes them criticize the tone of the argument. Sometimes, for fun, I try to write like H. L. Mencken because creationism is fundamentally as baseless as flat-earth ideas. There’s so much evidence against creationism that it’s laughable to espouse it. Usually, I am not Mencken-esque when I give evidence for evolution. I choose to either wear my atheist, anti-religious hat or my scientific hat when lecturing, but not both at the same time.
I’m going to Poland in two weeks to give two lectures. One will be about why evolution is true, which will be purely scientific. However, since Poland is a predominantly Catholic country, I’ll need to say, “A creator wouldn’t do this. “For example, a creator wouldn’t leave mammals or reptiles off oceanic islands in the middle of the ocean. They aren’t found there because they didn’t arrive there and evolve—not because a creator intended for those islands to be unique compared to the rest of the world.
The other lecture will cover why religion and science are incompatible, which ties into my other book. So, I have two books. I followed a similar path as Richard Dawkins. He wrote The God Delusion and later followed it up with The Greatest Show on Earth, a book focused on the evidence for evolution. I wrote Why Evolution Is True and then questioned why my book had yet to convince the public that evolution is true. It was a New York Times bestseller, and Dawkins had already written his book by then. So, why wasn’t everyone accepting the evidence?
It didn’t take me long to realize that people are immune to evidence because of their religious beliefs. It’s challenging to defend evolution without also critiquing creationism—impossible. When you critique creationism, you inherently critique religion.
There are indeed many religious scientists and religious people who accept science. That’s an argument I tackle in my book Faith Versus Fact. The question is, can you truly embrace both? My answer is no. Not completely.
They’re fundamentally incompatible disciplines. But, yes, you always get the tone argument. That’s the long-winded answer to your question.
Jacobsen: We’re speaking mainly about Christian-majority countries. However, according to recent census data from Statistics Canada, the total number of Christians in Canada is around 53 to 54%. If you track the trend line from the 1971 data through 2001 and 2021, Canada will fall below half-Christian in terms of its total population sometime this year. That’s a significant shift. The United Kingdom is already closer to 40%. While the United States still reports around 67%, that was different from two decades ago. So, there is a general decline. Does this mean that the acceptance of evolution—or at least theistic evolution—is likely to become more prevalent in these cultures?
Coyne: Yes, that’s what the statistics suggest. If you look at Gallup polls, you’ll see that the only steady increase is in the acceptance of naturalistic evolution. It started at about 9% in 1982 and has risen to around 25% by 2024. That’s a promising trend, but it’s important to note that more than half of Americans—nearly three-quarters—still oppose purely naturalistic evolution.
Keep in mind that 34% of Americans are theistic evolutionists. They accept evolution, but only up to a point. That point usually involves human evolution because they believe God created humans in His image. This belief skews the data, making the acceptance of evolution seem higher than it truly is. Many people struggle with the idea that what they perceive as a random, accidental process could lead to the complexity of human beings and our brains. This is a mischaracterization of natural selection, but it’s a common barrier to accepting evolution.
Jacobsen: This supernatural cosmogony, or what we could call divine creation biology, persists in Christian contexts. But it seems even trickier when it crosses into other religious contexts. I remember learning about Adnan Oktar’s Atlas of Creationthrough a Richard Dawkins lecture years ago. At first, I thought it couldn’t be real. I spoke with a cosmologist friend who identifies as a feminist Muslim, and he mentioned that Oktar often featured women he called “kittens” in his videos. We found it quite bizarre.
Some of the images and texts in Atlas of Creation were lifted from American creationist materials. It shows how these ideas can be exported and adapted, moving from a predominantly Christian cultural context to a Muslim one, spreading this misinformation across theological lines. So, there’s an export-import cycle of these anti-evolution arguments across different religious demographics.
Coyne: Absolutely. Islam, for instance, is generally anti-evolution. When my book Why Evolution Is True was translated into Arabic, navigating the sensitivities and resistance around the topic required immense effort.
And finally, it got translated by an evolutionist in Egypt with the help of an Egyptian translation service. They produced about three copies of the book. I then asked if it could be made free and distributed online. With the help of the Center for Inquiry, which has a translation project, they agreed to take the Arabic translation and put it online for free.
That will, I hope, make some impact. Regarding Adnan Oktar—also known as Harun Yahya—I still have his books on my shelf because I couldn’t bring myself to throw them away; they’re so glossy and expensive, but also quite amusing. By the way, he doesn’t have his “kittens” anymore because he’s now in jail for a long sentence.
It’s even more peculiar than you mentioned. He used images from American creationists and included a so-called picture of an insect that, when examined closely, is a fishing fly with the hook still visible.
The guy is a grifter. I don’t know why he was so deeply invested in anti-evolution propaganda, but he was. I can’t recall why he’s in jail now; it might be for drugs or fraud. He was convicted of numerous crimes.
Jacobsen: It’s quite a story. So, when you’re less active on that particular subject, such as tracking the Discovery Institute’s activities, what do you consider the enduring thread from Mencken’s era to the present regarding attempts to infiltrate school systems and advocate for a divine role in evolution? What common themes have persisted over time?
Coyne: The fact that evolution is inherently offensive to many people. Steve Stewart-Williams wrote a book about this—although I can’t recall the title—that delves into the different ways in which the concepts of evolution and natural selection challenge deeply held beliefs. It’s not just about religion. Evolution strikes the core of human exceptionalism and the belief that we are somehow separate from the rest of the natural world.
You don’t have to be religious to believe in human exceptionalism, but religion certainly reinforces it. The idea that naturalism alone is responsible for everything, including consciousness, is unsettling for many.
Some people propose supernaturalism or extranaturalism because they don’t believe naturalism can account for phenomena like consciousness. I remember talking to Steven Weinberg, the Nobel laureate in physics, at a meeting several years ago. My presentation was on free will and why it doesn’t truly exist—because our will originates in the brain, which is composed of molecules that follow the laws of physics. Therefore, we can’t step outside ourselves to make truly independent choices. At any given moment, the arrangement of molecules in the brain allows for only one possible action.
That idea is offensive to many people, including Weinberg. He asked, “Are you telling me I couldn’t have chosen something else when I choose what to eat at a restaurant?” I said, “Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying.” He objected, saying he didn’t believe it.
That reaction highlights how deeply unsettling naturalism can be, especially when it challenges the notion of free will. Naturalism, which underpins evolution, is inherently challenging. Evolution itself isn’t a philosophical concept, but it embodies methodological naturalism. Darwin’s work epitomized this, especially at the end of On the Origin of Species, where he wrote about the natural laws governing cosmology and biology. He drew a parallel between the laws of physics that dictate planetary motion and the laws that drive evolution, which are based on chemistry and physics.
So, yes, evolution offends people on multiple levels. Even if religion were to disappear—which it won’t, at least not in our lifetimes—people would still find reasons to object to evolution. However, it’s also true that the less people believe in God, the more likely they are to accept evolution. Suppose you graph countries based on religiosity and acceptance of evolution. In that case, you’ll see a clear trend: the more religious a country is, the less likely its population is to accept evolution. This appears to hold globally.
The least accepting countries are typically the most religious ones, such as Muslim-majority countries. Even within Europe, countries like Spain and Italy, which have strong Catholic traditions, are less accepting of evolution compared to more secular countries.
If you analyze the 50 United States similarly, you’ll also see a significant positive correlation between acceptance of evolution and atheism or lack of religiosity. The states most resistant to evolution, such as Tennessee—known for the famous Scopes Trial—are primarily in the American South. These states are also the most religious in the United States. The underlying thread is the tension between materialism and religion, which inherently rejects materialism.
Religion, by its nature, involves the supernatural. This theme has consistently run through the debate over evolution.
Jacobsen: Daniel Dennett passed away recently. What do you consider his legacy and contribution in this field?
Coyne: I knew Dan quite well and read most of his books. Just before he passed away, I received an autographed copy of his autobiography, I’ve Been Thinking if I recall correctly. I can’t speak with expertise about his accomplishments as a philosopher since I’m not one. From the perspective of evolution, though, Darwin’s Dangerous Ideawas his most influential work. In it, he described how the concept of evolution and natural selection is a “universal acid” that erodes supernatural and non-materialistic thinking. That was his major contribution to my field.
Dan was certainly an outstanding popularizer of evolution from a philosophical standpoint. Even though we disagreed about free will, I greatly respected him for his work on evolution. He wasn’t a supernaturalist; he believed in determinism and materialism, but also argued that free will could be understood as a materialistic process. He often told me, “You’re wrong,” and we’d debate it constantly.
Science and philosophy provide excellent grounds for intellectual battles, and Dan was a formidable opponent. I miss him. His passing is a great loss.
Jacobsen: Jerry, thank you so much for your time and for sharing your insights today. I appreciate it.
Coyne: Sure. Thank you.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Advocacy for Alleged Witches
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/25
In Akwa Ibom and Cross River States between 2000 and 2010, 15,000 children were branded as witches. They received this epithet mostly from churches. With this, they garnered abuse, sometimes extreme. One thousand were reportedly murdered. It is a deeply rooted superstition. So bad that UNHCR aid made a call for urgent measures for the protection of children accused of witchcraft, particularly from consequences of abuse, displacement, and trafficking.
The IHRDA, Child Rights and Rehabilitation Network, and the University of Pretoria sued Nigeria on December 9, 2021. They did this before the African Committee on the Rights and Welfare of the Child based on failures to protect children.
We welcomed the sentencing to death of five men in Kano Statemin December 2023 for beating Ms. Abubakar to death, who was accused of being a witch. Although we are opposed to the death penalty. We saw this as a landmark in bolding perpetrators accountable.
On March 28, 2025, a mob in Edo State killed 16 people who were suspected of kidnapping after finding homemade weapons in their vehicle. It was an underscoring of the rise in extrajudicial mob violence tied to theft and witchcraft fears.
All this is a backdrop to the events of April and May of 2025. Around 10:30 p.m. local time, the villagers of Gidan Katakare (Birnin Magaji LGA, Zamfara) made an accusation. They accused Haruna Lawali of bewitching Nafisa Masa’udu after a sudden fall to illness. A mob went into Lawali’s home, asking for explanations. A Dane gun was fired. Sharahu Haruna was fatally wounded. Haruna tried shielding Lawali.
Police from the Birnin Magaji Division arrived on the scene. They documented it. They released Haruna’s body to the family for an Islamic burial. An investigation into the community’s role was launched. Several articles were written in Daily Post Nigeria, Sahara Reporters, The Hope Newspaper, theinfostride.com, and Africa Press.
Dr. Leo Igwe wrote an article entitled “Is Witchcraft Justiciable Under Nigerian Law?” Igwe clarifies that Nigerian law criminalizes witchcraft accusations and identification but not witchcraft itself. This is a reference to Section 210 (Criminal Code) and parallel Penal Code sections. The investigation is open. No arrests or accountability have been made to date.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Advocacy for Alleged Witches
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/25
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.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Vocal.Media
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/12/13
Malik Ashraf is Vice Chairman of the Al-Madinah Calgary Islamic Assembly (Green Dome Mosque) in Calgary and a founding volunteer who has served the community for over 20 years. He helps lead the organization’s education work, including Green Dome Islamic School, a Prairie Land School Division partner school that combines Alberta’s curriculum with Islamic studies and community-based supports. In conversation, Ashraf describes education as guidance—moral, intellectual, and spiritual—anchored in the Qur’an’s call to read and learn. He advocates for equitable public policy, sustainable funding, and community-built institutions that protect children and strengthen families. He documents progress publicly and invites dialogue.
Vice Chairman Malik Ashraf explains how Green Dome Islamic School in Calgary blends Alberta curriculum delivery with Islamic guidance through a public–community partnership with Prairie Land School Division. He grounds the school’s mission in Qur’anic imperatives toward learning, framing education as lifelong instruction and moral direction. Ashraf recounts years of municipal red tape and the challenge of fundraising for a faith-based project while Catholic options remain embedded in tax policy. Students Rahim and Irfan describe wanting safer, higher-performing schools in Northeast Calgary and emphasize service, faith, and possibility. The interview closes with aspirations for expansion and sustainable support for families.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What is your name and title?
Malik Ashraf: Malik Ashraf. I am the Vice Chairman of Al Madinah Calgary Islamic Center.
Jacobsen: How long have you worked there?
Ashraf: I am a volunteer and a founding member for over 20 years.
Jacobsen: What was the official founding day of the school?
Ashraf: Construction started in August 2022.
Jacobsen: What got you involved in this work as a volunteer, and what has kept you in it for over 20 years?
Ashraf: My passion to give back: love of God, love of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, and care for children and families. Keeping them educated, informed, safe, and healthy—mentally, physically, and spiritually.
Jacobsen: Are there particular verses in the Quran that inform your emphasis on education?
Ashraf: Yes. The Quran strongly emphasizes knowledge and learning. The first revelation begins with “Iqra”—Read (Quran 96:1). It establishes the foundation for Islamic emphasis on education. The verse I referred to earlier is the beginning of Surah Al-Baqarah (2:1–5), which states, “Alif, Lam, Meem. This is the Book about which there is no doubt, a guidance for the God-conscious.” It describes belief in God, life after death, the prophets, the angels, and revelation. These verses frame the Quran as a book of guidance, and guidance itself is a form of education.
Jacobsen: So in this sense, do you see education more as guidance rather than instruction?
Ashraf: Education is the path; it is guidance. Somebody must instruct and guide you. A child—I have a son, he is five years old—is innocent and knows nothing. As his father, I take responsibility for guiding him and teaching him how to speak, eat, dress, walk, and interact with others. That is guidance; that is the path. Islam is the path we believe is the right path. You need guidance, and the Quran is the book that provides that guidance.
Jacobsen: Regarding the style of education, how would you describe it, and how would you compare it to other systems?
Ashraf: The educational style at Green Dome Islamic School is beautiful. Our approach is something we are seeing for the first time in Calgary. It is a public–private partnership: the public school division, the government, and the community, as a faith-based organization, working together. We have begun this excellent partnership model. The government teaches the Alberta curriculum. As an organization, you built this school with donated money, and you provided the $25-million construction. If you add the land, it is about a $35-million project. You gave it to the government for free to educate children, and your task is to teach faith.
We teach religion, and the government teaches the Alberta curriculum. The model is beautiful. There are highly trained, experienced teachers who teach the Alberta curriculum—principal, vice-principal, about twelve teachers, and administrative staff. We, as an organization—AMCIC—handle the faith-based component. We manage discipline, uniforms, and the religious part of the program. We have three teachers whom we hire and pay for. It is a beautiful partnership, and it is going successfully.
Jacobsen: What would you consider the core provisions of the system, and what secondary layers support students in the mission of education and guidance?
Ashraf: The core provisions are the Alberta curriculum and the faith component. That is the foundation. The primary layer is that each organization has taken its task: the government—through the school division—teaches the Alberta curriculum, and we teach faith. The division is the Calgary-based Prairie Land School Division, which delivers the Alberta curriculum. Our provisions, primary and secondary, are aligned because we follow the book, the Quran, and our curriculum, which already exists. Another school has been using the same curriculum, and it has been very successful.
Jacobsen: What about red tape with the Calgary Council and government? I am told this is an issue. One way of framing it is that it takes a long time, but once something is finally approved and built, you know it is solid. Another way of framing it is that there is a lot of red tape, and it takes too long. Why can businesses get things fast-tracked, while this cannot?
Ashraf: You are right, absolutely. That is my painful nerve—you pinched the nerve that has been there for ten years. It was more than ten years for the land-use part alone. The delays were due to the City of Calgary’s bureaucracy and the departments involved. Our file was there, and the file managers were on holiday. File managers did not know what they would do. It went from one manager to another. By the time some progress had been made, the manager was transferred to another department. A new file manager came in, and he asked for everything again, from the beginning. It takes two or three years that way. One councillor supports you; then the councillor changes. Government bureaucracy—when you keep calling them—it was a painful process to complete the land-use development.
Jacobsen: If you look at the earliest graduates—those who would have been the oldest—how old would they be now? If they had graduated when the first school was operating, what is the age range from the earliest graduates to the current students? For example, the young man beside you, Irfan—how old are you?
Irfan: Twenty.
Ashraf: He was probably five—actually three—years old when we started in 2008. Now he leads the prayer, he does fundraisers, but he did not have the opportunity to attend that school. But he had the chance to learn everything within our community, with the leadership of Professor Imam Syed and the MOSS project, and at home, his mother taught him. So we had avenues, but he did not have this chance.
Jacobsen: Rahim—how old are you now?
Rahim: Twenty.
Ashraf: So these two—seventeen years. If they had been able to get admission and we had been able to build the school back then, they would be in university today, having come through our school system.
Jacobsen: So they would be at that age. What are you both studying at university?
Rahim and Irfan: We are both studying finance.
Jacobsen: Both finance? Does the school emphasize finance?
Ashraf: Yes. Definitely. We love our Alberta education. We plan to expand. Right now, it is Kindergarten to Grade 9. We plan to grow from a high school to a college, and eventually to a university. We plan to teach everything. A child comes to us in ECS—before kindergarten—and leaves us when he is a professional going out to work: a journalist, a doctor, a scientist, a mathematician, an engineer, an IT expert—anything. That is the mission. This has been done by other faith communities, especially those that have been in Canada longer.
Jacobsen: Where I lived in Langley, the evangelical churches do something similar. The church community had its own private Christian school. I do not think they had public–private partnerships, but at least some of them were fully private. They teach K through 12, and many families send their children to Trinity Western University—or to one of roughly ten private Christian universities in Canada. Trinity Western is the largest. So that model is well established. If you apply a principle of universalism, you would have to argue that if one faith community can do it, others should be able to do it also—or, if not, explain why not. The only point of pushback sometimes comes at the post-secondary level—between private and public. You can have public–private partnerships at the K–12 level, but it may be tougher to make that case at the university level.
Ashraf: What I learned is that it comes down to processes and procedures. When we started this project, I did not know many things. I learned and grew with Green Dome School. I learned systems, built systems, made contacts, and met many people—including yourself today. That is how I met so many people. What I learned is that you cannot create any new government-funded universities or colleges in Alberta, but you can create private ones. So we can always proceed as a private university or private college. As long as you follow the policies and procedures, have strong courses, qualified teachers, and meet all the requirements for offering university-level education, you can obtain the license.
Jacobsen: Yes, and some of those private universities have had their share of controversies—Trinity Western, Redeemer, Canadian Mennonite University, and others—but those are the typical institutional hiccups that happen. One thing I would advise is to study where other institutions have run into roadblocks and avoid repeating those mistakes. Looking forward, you currently run K through 9. You are looking forward to building a third storey on the building or to finishing its interior. Is that expected next year?
Ashraf: 2026.
Jacobsen: And then, you will grow from 360 students to 550?
Ashraf: Yes, that is the plan.
Jacobsen: Once you get that additional facility built, what does that mean in terms of staffing? What does that mean in terms of interactions across multiple generations of students? We often find elementary, middle, and high schools separated—different buildings, different properties, different systems. Sometimes one or two are merged, but not usually all of them. Your plan appears to be a complete merger of the same property, mainly in the same building. How do you see that integration happening culturally across such wide age groups of non-adults?
Ashraf: You’re right. We have thought about that carefully, and I have talked to these students—these young men—and to other boys and girls at different ages, especially those who have gone to school here and have seen the challenges in this society. What we learned, and what is included in our business plan, is that we will not merge the high school with this building. When we start high school, it will be on a separate campus, because the age difference is so significant. You may have a kindergarten child and a Grade 12 student in the same space—that is too wide a difference.
That is why we designed the building with separate class sections. On the main floor, it is exclusively early childhood and kindergarten—no older children. On the first floor, all grades from Grade 1 to Grade 7. On the third floor, it will be Grade 8, and possibly Grades 7, 8, and 9 if needed. We may increase the number of sections—A, B, C—but we will not have all students on the same floor. This maintains segregation of age groups, discipline, and each child’s comfort level.
Jacobsen: You mentioned school performance. It was at 95 percent.
Ashraf: Yes—95 percent in the first year. Another thing I want to share is that the first year of Green Dome School was not in this building. It was in portables and in the mosque. This is our second year of school, but our first year in the main building. Teaching in portables or in a mosque doesn’t matter if you have passion. We had love, discipline, teachers, land, community, and parents. We sincerely appreciate them—they stood with us, beside us, behind us.
We told the community we were going to build a school on this land, and they believed in us. We told them the school would start in August 2024. They believed us and registered their children, even though the building was not ready. Because of red tape, we were unable to secure occupancy on time, but we did not delay the start of the school year. We opened in portables and taught the kids—even in brutal weather. They would leave the portables and go to the mosque to use the washroom.
But the discipline, care, education, and supervision policies were so well placed and organized that, even under those conditions, our school achieved 95 percent academically in the province.
Jacobsen: Historically, the longest-standing religious educational institution in Canada has been the Roman Catholic school system. The Catholic demographic was extremely large. In 1971, Christian affiliation in Canada was over 90 percent. By the 2021 census, based on my projections from the data, it is now just under 50 percent—less than half of the population. Catholics are only a subset of that. Religious institutions with long histories have enjoyed many privileges in education and have well-established paths within the systems they operate.
Are there parts of the Roman Catholic education system—or any other religiously integrated systems—that you looked at when developing your own? Any regular education system with a religious overlay? Or did you start from scratch in designing curricula, systems, infrastructure, and so on?
Ashraf: What I believe in life is that you do not need to reinvent the wheel. You rotate it—as long as you find the size that fits. We have our own curriculum in the Quran and Hadith, as you know. But we met with Prairie Land School Division. They were already operating another Islamic school in Calgary: Al-Amal Academy. We went there, visited, and observed their operations. We studied their system and adapted it. So we adopted the same formula that was already in place, but the management here is ours.
At Al-Amal, they have their own management, but here at Green Dome, we manage the school. The formula was established, and the curriculum—the Alberta curriculum—is the same one Prairie Land teaches there. Al-Amal is a remodelled building; it was initially an office building converted into a school. Our building, by contrast, is state-of-the-art and purpose-built for school use. That is the main difference. The curriculum itself is consistent.
Jacobsen: Have you had any other media coverage?
Ashraf: Many—across all the media. I am also active on social media myself. When we started construction of Green Dome School, God put it into my mind to begin documenting the process. I started making weekly update videos every Thursday. We had our weekly meetings with the construction company to review progress—what had been done the previous week, where we were that day, and what was planned for the next week. I made weekly virtual video updates for over 2.5 years.
Jacobsen: Wow. On TikTok, YouTube, Instagram?
Ashraf: On Facebook. I am on TikTok, YouTube, and all platforms, but this series was on my Facebook page. People around the globe watched it. Every Thursday, I did a live update, and we had a variety of personalities—leaders from the City of Calgary, faith leaders, politicians, school teams, parents, lawyers, teachers, community members, realtors, sponsors, imams, and members of interfaith councils. Every week, I invited a different guest. They were living with me as I showed them the construction.
Everything is on my Facebook: ground construction, first level, second level, framing, staircases, concrete being poured, and construction crews working. At the end, I asked each guest: “What do you think? What did you see? What do you feel? Share honestly with the public.” That was my style. Many community members and media representatives attended.
Jacobsen: What is your biggest takeaway from school?
Irfan: I think you have to do more. There is more to life than yourself. Your own personal matters will continue regardless. You have to take time for others to make life better.
Rahim: We always talked about how much we wished we had a facility like this to go to school in, and now that we’re in it, it feels surreal. When we were little, we always wanted a nice school to go to—somewhere with other people our age. My school used to smell like old wood.
Jacobsen: Old wood was my school, too.
Rahim: Exactly—you know how it is. We wanted a nice school where we could be with friends who shared our religious and cultural values, and somewhere we could learn. After school, we would have to drive to the mosque for classes. Now, when you go to one place and all your needs are met, it is a lot easier for your family and your parents.
Jacobsen: It saves gas money.
Irfan: Yes, that too. Calgary in the winter means the heating bill is another story, but yes. I would also add that one major takeaway from this entire project is that anything is possible—literally anything. If you were part of this project and saw the hurdles we had to overcome, you would know that with enough passion and effort, anything is possible.
Jacobsen: Because it is crowdfunded—an entirely crowdfunded project.
Ashraf: Yes.
Jacobsen: To the tune of what—twenty-five million?
Rahim: Twenty-five million. All crowdfunded—from white-collar workers, blue-collar workers, and new immigrants. Where there is a dream and a will, there is a way. And most importantly, the blessing of God.
Jacobsen: What is your favourite excerpt or verse? Quran or Hadiths.
Irfan: “The friends of Allah have no fear, no doubt, and no regret.” What we mean by “friends of Allah” is people who are close to God. If you are devoted to God and trust God, you develop a concept of reliance. This school would not have been possible without that. It seemed impossible at first. It was a decade-long act of faith. We proposed the plan, and people said, “Nice idea, but how are you going to do it?”
If you have faith in God and trust in God, and you have a good personal relationship with God, He opens paths for you—paths where you will not fear taking them, paths where you will not doubt continuing.
Rahim: Another one of my favourite sayings—one I use when fundraising—is from the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him: “The best among you are those who are most beneficial to others.” Time and time again, we see greed, a lack of care for others, and a lack of kindness. But God loves most those who do the most for others. We need to take time out of our personal lives to do something for others and leave an impact greater than ourselves. Selfishness is not the way. We believe in a life after death, and the way you achieve that afterlife is by doing more than for yourself—by doing for God and by being beneficial to the world, not only to yourself.
Jacobsen: You have seen obstacles both personally and institutionally. What would you say is the most significant challenge?
Ashraf: Money. The same problem every charitable project faces. I have raised this question directly with the Premier. I have raised it with the Minister of Education. I have asked councillors, MLAs, MPs, and ministers. I ask them: Canada identifies as a non-faith country—at least now it does. So when we want to build Islamic schools, we do not receive any funding.
Any grant, anything—at any level of government. If you approach them and ask for funding, they will say, “What is your purpose?” If you are doing entertainment, culture, or social programs, they have money for you. But if you say you are running a faith-based school, the answer is no. All the doors shut. In the name of secularism, every door is closed.
Yet when you look at your property tax form, there is a column asking: Where do you want your school taxes to go—public school or Catholic school?
So I say: Why is there not a third column—”Other”? Under “Other,” you could list Sikh schools, Muslim schools, Hindu schools, or non-faith independent schools. Let people direct the money they are already giving. Right now, we are forced to pay property tax, and the government decides how it is used. But if we want to build a school for our children, we do not receive any of the money that was taken from us. We pay provincial tax, then property tax, then obligatory insurance, levies—everything.
Jacobsen: Sounds like a libertarian talk show.
Ashraf: When I come back to the government asking for just a portion of the taxes I have paid, because I want to do something for my children, my family, and my community, they put roadblocks everywhere. That is the challenge.
I tell them: You go to a community where 90 percent of the residents are Muslims or Hindus, and in the middle of that community, you open a Catholic school. I ask them, “Did you ever ask the community what their needs are?” And the Catholic school receives all the funding.
Jacobsen: That is historical inertia. In 1971, the country was over 90 percent Christian. These systems were built then. But now the demographics have changed. But the systems have not caught up.
Ashraf: Now things are changing. They are learning. But someone needs to tell them—and I am doing that advocacy. They are good people; do not get me wrong. They need to be informed.
Jacobsen: We are living in systems created by people who are no longer alive. The Catholic school system was established a long time ago; its architects are no longer here.
Ashraf: True. And now this partnership—public, government, and nonprofit charity—is a new model. It is happening. Now I am advocating for them to give us rent for the building. It is an 80,000-square-foot brand-new building. We gave it to the government. Yes, they are teaching children there, but they are not paying rent, brother. I still have to raise $200,000 every week.
The government is using the building and educating the children, but we—as the public—have to make the $150,000 monthly mortgage payment. This is my fight with them. I am trying to convince them, and they are working on it. I had a meeting with the Minister of Education. He agrees. He is a lovely gentleman. He said, “It makes sense, Malik, what you’re saying.” And I said, “Yes. I am not asking for special favours. I am saying: we built this school with donations from blue-collar workers. They are Canadian. They are taxpayers. They are residents. Their kids attend this school. All they are asking is: don’t keep coming back to us for donations now that the school is built. Help us manage it.”
So I am asking for either an ATB no-interest loan (it is the government’s bank) or monthly rent. Please do not take money from us. Go into the market and see the going rental rate per square foot. We are being given 95 cents per square foot. The market rate is about $30. Why 95 cents? Because that number was decided 50 years ago.
There was no updated exercise. We are trying to set a precedent for the future. We are trying to open doors for other faith organizations or private schools. We want the public and the government to work together. The advantage of this formula is that the government pays high wages to teachers, thereby attracting the best teachers to the school.
We have excellent teachers because the government pays them. We, as a faith-based organization, specialize in faith. So we hire the best teachers on our side. The students benefit from the best teachers in the Alberta curriculum and the best teachers for faith.
But right now, as a management team, we are under strain. We need to raise money every month. That is a big task, and we are working on it. Hopefully, we will resolve it soon.
During construction, every door was closed. Any door we knocked on—once they found out we were doing a faith-based school—they said, “Bye.” No grants for faith-based schools.
Jacobsen: Which is critical, because Catholics have doors already open in policy. It is in the government documents—they explicitly list “public,” “Catholic,” and “other.”
Ashraf: Yes. I know. There are movements in Canada—probably at least seven—working to establish a single public secular school system. They are trying to abolish the Catholic privilege. But they encounter similar difficulties. It is hard to change historical inertia.
Jacobsen: It takes time. The government is slow.
Rahim: Same thing that Malik Uncle said. It is no longer a 90 percent Catholic country. There are many new faces, new cultures, and new religions. And the government has not adapted to people’s needs.
If we are genuinely doing a public service and doing the government a favour by educating children, then we deserve a little help. We are not asking for everything to be funded. But we expect some help. We have done so much as volunteers, and we are still following the government system and teaching the Alberta curriculum. We expect a little support. That is our challenge.
Jacobsen: Challenges for you as students—formally.
Irfan: One challenge, at least for me, is the quality of education in this region—specifically, Northeast Calgary. The school I went to—and the schools in our area—truthfully are not very good. They smell like old wood and urine. It is not about the building quality; it is the quality of education. A lot of people I know—friends and relatives—did not make it to university or post-secondary education. Not because they did not want to, but because the schools underperformed. They did not give career advice. You would go to advisors, and they did not provide proper information.
For me, this project addresses a personal problem many people face. I hope this school becomes an avenue to reform the quality of education and raise the standard of this region, so the public schools here can also see what is happening and what can be improved. Luckily, by the grace of God, I was able to pull through academically. I also looked at other schools across the city.
Those schools are relatively good. People are much more competitive academically. Performance is better, and resources are better. Northeast Calgary is underfunded. That is apparent through our advisors and teachers, who are not excelling to the same extent. So we struggle with education here, and I hope this school can become a standard for better education. Over the past year, our school has been performing well, and I hope it becomes a model for that.
The high schools we went to—the environment in the North is not geared toward making it to post-secondary. The environment is, you know, “high school, whatever.” A lot of kids from my high school did not even graduate. But when you go to another high school in the South, or in a different part of the city, everyone expects you to go to university. You get made fun of if you do not.
But in our area, it is the complete opposite. It is the culture—peer-to-peer culture. And on top of that, not only are many students not making it to university, but a significant number are going into unhealthy activities. There is more drug use, more violence, especially. At schools like Nelson Mandela High School and Lester B. Pearson, incidents occur almost every week.
We wanted to spare our people and our society from these things. Hopefully, this school can be the start of something great for the Northeast—for the underserved population here. We want to set a standard for the other schools and motivate them to improve.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, everyone.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen is the publisher of In-Sight Publishing (ISBN: 978-1-0692343) and Editor-in-Chief of In-Sight: Interviews (ISSN: 2369-6885). He writes for The Good Men Project, International Policy Digest (ISSN: 2332–9416), The Humanist (Print: ISSN 0018-7399; Online: ISSN 2163-3576), Basic Income Earth Network (UK Registered Charity 1177066), A Further Inquiry, and other media. He is a member in good standing of numerous media organizations.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Vocal.Media
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/12/09
Christopher Pommerening is a German entrepreneur, investor, and education innovator who has dedicated his career to reimagining learning for the 21st century. Based in Barcelona, he is the founder of Learnlife, a global movement of “learning hubs” designed to replace outdated, standardized models of education with personal, co-created, and autonomous approaches. Drawing on his 27 years in the technology and startup sector, Pommerening combines entrepreneurial vision with a deep commitment to human-centred learning. His work emphasizes relationships, lifelong learning, and learner agency, aiming to inspire ecosystems of change that help individuals flourish in diverse cultural contexts worldwide.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: When you think of education in a tech-heavy, AI-driven era, what does it mean to you philosophically as an opener?
Christopher Pommerening: First, we need to ask ourselves: What is the role of humans in a future shaped heavily by technology and artificial intelligence? What kind of world do we want for ourselves and for children going forward?
If we look back, digital technologies have constantly reshaped how people live and learn. Television changed attention and entertainment habits. The internet opened vast new ways of accessing information. Social media then introduced what researchers often describe as “dopamine-driven” usage patterns—platforms designed to trigger reward-seeking behaviours and sometimes create addictive cycles.
The interesting question is: how will AI differ from those earlier technologies? Some experts predict that while social media created behavioural addictions, AI could lead to forms of dependency—outsourcing thinking and decision-making to machines. That dependency may risk dulling human skills and awareness over time.
This raises a deeper point: if people are not self-aware, if they lack what we might call self-understanding, their essence—creativity, empathy, independent thought—could begin to erode over the coming decades. To avoid this, we must cultivate that self-understanding and then build healthy relationships with whatever tools we use, including AI. Only then can we navigate the future responsibly.
Jacobsen: What about Gen Z and younger generations—the ones who are truly social media natives, not just digital natives? How does that affect their approach to education?
Pommerening: Do you mean the fact that, because they grew up with apps and digital platforms, they often expect everything to be digital and app-based?
Jacobsen: People still read, but the framework has changed. Their style of reading is different. Someone scrolling through tweets or Instagram quotes is processing text in short snapshots. That affects how they approach longer or more complex forms of reading.
Pommerening: That is true. However, the larger question is: what is most important for us as humans? It is relationships.
Around ten years ago, we began exploring the most progressive and innovative educational practices worldwide. Our research team visited, both virtually and physically, about one hundred of the most innovative schools. We studied their practices and compared them with findings from roughly 600 research reports on education and learning.
One of the most influential studies we encountered was by John Hattie, an education researcher from New Zealand. His Visible Learning project synthesized over 800 meta-analyses covering millions of students. Hattie’s work identifies which factors have the most significant positive or negative effects on learning outcomes. What stood out is that some of the most broken elements in education are structural—such as overemphasis on standardized testing—while some of the most effective elements involve teacher-student relationships, feedback, and student self-belief.
The top factor is actually relationships. This matters because, regardless of which generation we belong to or how we view the world today, relationships are fundamental. That includes our relationship with ourselves, our peers, our families, our society, and even with our planet. We need to understand those relationships first before we can create a healthy relationship with digital devices.
Once we do that, we can start to understand the impact of behaviours such as constant swiping, consuming only short-form texts, or looking at blue screens all day—especially at night. If we understand what those habits do to our bodies and minds, we can begin to make more intentional choices about how we want to learn: what kinds of content we prefer, in what formats, and how we balance analog and digital approaches. From there, a completely different way of learning begins to emerge.
Jacobsen: So, how do you calibrate these human-centred or learner-centred alternatives? In many countries, standardized tests and examinations remain dominant. They provide a universal metric, but they are also depersonalized. Given your visits to a hundred schools and your research into innovative models, how can we create an individualized approach that is still viable within broader educational systems?
Pommerening: Let me go back to what we found when we studied education systems worldwide. As you mentioned, most systems are built on standardized, grade- and exam-based structures – still today the status quo in most parts of the world.
About 10 to 15 years ago, leading voices in educational innovation began talking about personalized or individualized learning. The strength of this approach is that it recognizes the learner as an individual and adapts learning journeys to fit their needs better, while still connecting to what the system demands. However, the limitation is that education remains performance-driven, measured against standardized tests. It is still something done to the learner, with the teacher directing the process.
That is where we are today and what we call the second level of education transformation. However, if you look ahead, the fundamental transformation happens when the role of the educator shifts from instructor to guide, mentor, and co-creator. When learners and educators co-design learning journeys together, the process becomes aligned with the learner’s own passions, inspirations, and interests.
At that point, learning becomes truly meaningful. The learner realizes education is not primarily for the system, for exams, for grades, for parents, or even for a diploma or university degree. It is for them, here and now, as part of their own personal journey.
Pommerening: That is what we call the third level: co-designed and co-created learning, which comes after personalized education. Then there is a fourth stage, which we see as the ultimate stage—personal autonomous learning.
At this point, full agency shifts to the learner. The learner is equipped with the capacities to become a lifelong learner: self-awareness, self-management, self-regulation, self-responsibility, self-directedness, and self-determination. These qualities together build an autonomous lifelong learner.
At that stage, the learner can take complete ownership of their learning path, becoming the designer of their own experiences and exploring any field. In a sense, this resembles what often happens when students first reach university: suddenly, they must learn how to learn, often without much preparation.
Now, imagine a system that begins building that capacity from the age of five or six. By fostering learner autonomy early on, human-centred learning can help individuals develop lifelong learning skills from the very beginning.
Jacobsen: What about partnerships for lifelong learning—so that you can experiment in different ways and scale this model over the long term and across cultural contexts?
Pommerening: We once believed that scalability would primarily come through technology. My own background is in technology startups; I have spent about 27 years building and investing in companies. It seemed natural to assume paradigm shifts in education would also come through technology.
However, what I discovered is that learning involves every human sense. True transformation and paradigm shifts require physical, real-world environments. That realization led us, in 2018, to create a new kind of school—though we prefer to call it a learning hub. The idea was to design the most life-ready, future-focused school in the world, implementing our framework in practice.
The hub serves as a community base where learners and guides gather, then venture into real-life contexts to continue their journeys—across the city, in workplaces, or in nature. The hub is a symbol of rootedness, providing a base community from which learning extends outward and continually returns.
This hub has now been in place for seven years, and the framework is fully implemented. It has grown into a vibrant community of learners, learning guides, parents, and supporters. We have found that the best way to inspire other cultures and regions is not through mass technology rollout, but through establishing lighthouses—real-world models of future learning in different cultural settings.
Our next step is to build these lighthouses with partners—whether they are foundations, governments, school networks, or groups of entrepreneurial families—so that the model can adapt and thrive in diverse contexts.
Pommerening: By creating hubs in various regions worldwide, societies can be inspired by this innovative approach to learning. Around Barcelona, we have already seen how powerful this can be. Over the past few years, many system-centred schools have reached out, asking for support in transforming into this new model.
An ecosystem has grown around our hub. Many schools in the Barcelona region are now in the process of adopting this framework. If we can establish similar hubs across the world, the same amplifying effect can unfold in other regions as well.
Jacobsen: What about the people who were part of the pilot projects? Have some of them come back to join your team and contribute to further innovation?
Pommerening: Yes, definitely. In 2017, we established a global network of thought leaders in education. It now includes between 800 and 900 people. Some have contributed only briefly, while others have been deeply involved in shaping aspects of the learning framework.
Many of these contributors have since joined as learning guides, and some are building or launching new learning hubs in other parts of the world. That is very inspiring. In fact, one of our recent graduates is preparing to take her first professional role within Learnlife.
It is also rewarding to see the different paths learners take after graduation. Some continue to university, many become entrepreneurs, and others remain within Learnlife to carry the vision forward.
Jacobsen: Any favourite educational quotes?
Pommerening: Yes—one comes from Albert Einstein. I do not recall the exact wording in English, but it is along the lines of: “If you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing it is stupid.” That quote symbolizes the kind of education system built more than 150 years ago. You can imagine all the animals standing before a tree, each being told to climb it, despite having vastly different abilities.
However, each animal is a wonderful species with unique talents. The same is true for humans: every person has superpowers waiting to be discovered. Our responsibility is to create environments and connections that allow these talents to flourish.
Jacobsen: Thank you very much for your time today. I appreciate your expertise. It was nice to meet you.
Pommerening: Thank you very much.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Vocal.Media
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/12/09
Gáspár Békés is Secretary and a Founding Member of the Hungarian Atheist Association and a persecuted secular journalist. Here we talk in-depth about secularism, Humanism, youth rights, and religion in Hungary.
In this interview with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Békés discusses the launch of the European Secularist Network at the European Parliament and why secular humanism should be the foundation of European policy. Békés argues Hungary weaponizes religion—outsourcing state functions to churches, censoring secular voices—and that far-right “Christian re-theocratization” is a false solution to migration and security challenges. He proposes equal human rights standards across all faiths and institutions, challenges biased census design, and targets Hungary’s restrictive vasectomy rules as test cases for Strasbourg. The network aims to pool resources, coordinate litigation, and lobby lawmakers to defend egalitarian, secular governance.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: All right—so, rotten tomatoes again. We now have the launch of the European Secularist Network. The organizations include Centre d’Action Laïque (Centre CAL) from French-speaking Belgium, IGALE from France, Europa Laica from Spain, Kongres Świeckości from Poland, the National Secular Society from the UK, UAAR from Italy, the Hungarian Atheist Association, and others. I was present at an invitation to the event at the European Parliament in Strasbourg.
It is actually a large coalition of organizations and individuals, secular voices from across Europe. The network was launched in the European Parliament in Strasbourg on July 8, 2025. I was present. You spoke, others spoke, and parliamentarians also addressed the gathering about the importance of combating the rise of the extreme far right and the role of secular voices in that struggle. Is that a fair characterization? What else should be noted?
Gáspár Békés: Yes, that’s perfect. It is an excellent characterization. The reason I found this opportunity so exciting is that it was held in the European Parliament. That meant we were not just talking in an ivory tower of our own making—it was happening right where politics happens. Too often, secular or atheist-secular perspectives do not enter the mainstream; they stay at the margins. So having this network launched in such a prominent forum is a good sign for the future. It also had real backing.
We had a parliamentarian present who genuinely understood what was at stake and the connections involved. I sincerely believe that secular humanism offers answers to many of the most pressing challenges facing Europe today. In my speech, I highlighted some of the Hungarian proceedings—how the Orbán regime is weaponizing religion to push an illiberal agenda. This includes indoctrinating children, as I have mentioned earlier, but also outsourcing public services, institutions, and funds to churches, which then operate with little to no oversight. Many laws do not even apply to churches, and those that technically do are unenforced or selectively applied.
This is not unique to Hungary. We see the same modus operandi in Iran, Turkey, and Russia—different religions, same weaponization of faith. Europe feels the effects too—for example, the Russian Orthodox Church. Hungary colluded with Putin to lobby for Patriarch Kirill to be removed from the EU sanctions list. They argued it would violate religious freedom to sanction him—even though he is an ex-KGB agent and the Church itself is being used for surveillance. There are credible reports that the Orthodox Church places buildings near nuclear facilities, military bases, and airports to hide listening devices. Intelligence gathering disguised as religion. Moreover, when anyone points it out, they cry “religious persecution.”
This is also a security issue. My background in international security from Sciences Po gives me a lens to see how deeply these dynamics affect global stability. Moreover, they absolutely do.
Meanwhile, the far-right in Europe is gaining traction by pushing the idea that an “Islamic invasion” can only be stopped through a Christian re-theocratization. They argue that Europe must defend itself by returning to Christian foundations and heritage. However, what this actually means is trading one theocracy for another. It is neither democracy nor freedom. Most people do not want either an Islamic theocracy or a Christian theocracy. Both are equally disastrous.
That said, the far-right’s rhetoric gains traction because migration is a real issue. No one denies that solutions are needed. Moreover, this problem will only intensify with the climate crisis. Environmental displacement will drive even more refugees into Europe, on a scale far larger than what we have seen so far.
So we do need to come up with a strategy for how to address this. Of course, there is already a problem with migrants living in Europe, although the scale and tone presented by the far-right do not give a realistic picture. Nonetheless, the problem exists. Current politics does not really address it, because if you look across the political spectrum, there is no consistent strategy.
However, secular humanism can provide one. You cannot restrict Muslim migration by saying Islam is an aggressive religion that does not respect women or LGBTQ rights, while at the same time propping up the Catholic Church. That is simply racism. If someone does not oppose all oppressive ideologies, all oppressive religious structures, and does not advocate for the enforcement of fundamental human rights across every institution—including churches—then they are being selective, and that selectivity is racist. If someone singles out Muslims, that is racism, plain and simple.
Few politicians today are addressing the entire problem. Secular humanism, however, offers a solution. This migration crisis highlights why strong secular institutions are needed and why a strong secular rule of law is vital. We should revisit, refresh, and advance secular protections because egalitarianism must underpin how we address this crisis.
It is perfectly fair to say that someone should not be allowed to enter a country as a migrant if they do not respect the equality of women, or if they believe gay people should be stoned. That is unacceptable. That is incompatible with fundamental European values and human rights. But that standard should apply regardless of whether it stems from an interpretation of Islam or from any other religion or ideology.
At the same time, we must examine the privileges of existing religious institutions in Europe, including Christian churches and Jewish institutions. Take the Catholic Church. In every country in the world, it legally discriminates against women. No other institution is allowed to do this. Imagine if Lidl or another supermarket chain refused to hire women because they thought women were less capable of running a cash register. It would be absurd. However, the Catholic Church is permitted to do it—and in many countries, including Hungary, they even receive state funding while doing so.
So the only way to address the problem of Muslim immigration and the intolerance sometimes associated with it is also to take a hard look at the privileges granted to Christian churches. If we are going to challenge intolerance from Islam, or at least fundamentalist interpretations of Islam, then we must also challenge the existing privileges of the Catholic Church. That is the only consistent approach.
Of course, that is not easy. The Church has been operating with privilege for nearly two thousand years. However, change is possible—and history shows the Church only changes when it is forced to. One prominent example is the Reformation. When it finally faced competition, when there was no monopoly on religion, it had to adapt to new market conditions. If we truly live in a capitalist society, then perhaps the Church should face real market competition.
Moreover, of course, the state’s support of churches is skewing the market. It manipulates market conditions because churches are not subject to market forces. If they actually had to, the Catholic Church—being the largest and most influential—would probably become the biggest supporter of gay rights and human rights, because otherwise people would stop paying for it. Right now, they have their own state. For ease of argument, I often highlight the Catholic Church, but of course, we could also talk about ultra-religious Israelite communities or other groups. The point is that churches are not forced to change. They run PR campaigns with Pope Francis saying nice things now and then, but there is no real progress, because they are under no pressure. For example, allowing women to become priests would not collapse the Church. People say the institution cannot change, but I do not find that argument compelling. First of all, if the Church collapses because it cannot meet modern standards, then so be it. Second, history shows collapse is unlikely. When hundreds of thousands of cases of child rape were uncovered in France, the Church did not collapse. Nobody was banned, and hardly anyone was arrested. If that did not cause collapse, ordaining women indeed would not—it has not collapsed Protestant denominations that ordain women. In fact, the Catholic Church would likely benefit from change. Many people still have an intrinsic need for spirituality. Mortality guarantees that. If the Church embraced human rights, more people might return. Right now, many are distancing themselves because Church teachings on contraception and gender roles are wildly out of step with lived reality. Realistically, it would be a challenge even to find a Catholic in the street who actually follows the contraception ban. So this is a win–win situation: the Church could survive and even thrive if it adapted, while society would benefit from more egalitarian institutions. Otherwise, it risks extinction. I do not know how far Europe will push this, however. Public money continues to support churches, even as both priests and congregants decline. In Hungary, the average priest is in his 60s, and last year only 64 priests were in training, 1/4 of what the number was 20 years ago, way below the replacement rate. It is hard to say which will run out first—the priests or the flock. This circles back to the far-right argument: it can never work. Even if you accept the premise that a Christian theocracy is needed to combat an Islamic theocracy, there are not enough Christians—let alone fundamentalist Christians—to sustain such a system. It would fail. The only viable alternative is secular humanism, which involves establishing strict egalitarian standards across all institutions, whether religious or otherwise. Then we can say consistently, “We do not accept fundamentalist Islamists, because we do not accept any fundamentalism.” That is how this crisis can become an opportunity to advance human rights to the next level, where they belong. Otherwise, the alternative is a very dark path.
Jacobsen: This is a footnote to the whole thing. The European Humanist Federation ceased operations in December 2022. It was the largest umbrella group in Europe for humanist and secularist bodies and offered advocacy at the European Union and Council of Europe fora. Its role was absorbed into Humanists International’s European capacity-building efforts. Where does the European Secularist Network sit alongside that? Because it seems like the European Humanist Federation did the same work, though now under a more global body.
Békés: Well, Humanists International is focused primarily on the international sphere. They try to avoid being too regional. In a way, it is a group that harmonizes different ideas. However, it is not just about secularism—it also supports things like humanist ceremonies and other added values of humanism, the softer side, such as capacity-building. It functions as an umbrella organization for standardization, information-sharing, and exchange, but it is not focused on any one issue. That is why having a secular network is important: it has a European focus, addresses European challenges, and is explicitly centred on secularism—the most political aspect of humanism. I often feel that while I cherish and appreciate the work of Humanists International, it sometimes lacks the directness that a secular political organization requires.
Jacobsen: The teeth.
Békés: Yes, the teeth, exactly. A secular political organization addresses issues that require attention at the political level and avoids being sidetracked by matters that, while valuable, are politically redundant—such as humanist ceremonies. They are wonderful, I love them, but they are not relevant when lobbying European policymakers. Stakeholders want to know: what is secularism, what does it add, what does it bring to the table? That is what this secular network can provide. Although I am vice president of the Hungarian Atheist Society, many people assume we do things like debates with creationists. I could not care less about that. I have never tried to convince anyone to be an atheist, and I do not advocate atheism itself. I advocate for equal treatment of atheists and for secularism. Those are the issues that interest me, and they are the focus of my work. Having a network, a secular platform where I can engage at the international level, is very exciting. It is high time we had it, and I expect great things.
I also presented some of the strategies we are pursuing at the Hungarian Atheist Association, including strategic lawsuits. My own case is unfortunately one of them now, but another is also heading to the European Court of Human Rights: the manipulated census. Hungary asked a suggestive question about religion—religious respondents could specify their denomination, but non-religious respondents could not. This was clearly intentional, preventing non-religious people from being recognized as an identifiable group and therefore blocking them from forming advocacy or lobbying efforts based on their numbers. We challenged it in court; the Constitutional Court rejected it, and now it is heading to Strasbourg. This is especially important because Hungary is not unique—most European countries either ask leading questions or fail to give non-believers space to specify their worldview. It is a European problem, and it is also bad science. I would have been kicked out of my bachelor’s program in the first year if I had ever presented data gathered this way.
When you ask a suggestive question and categorize groups that way, you would fail an introductory sociology class. However, states are doing this. A legal victory here would matter not only because it would improve the science and have a long-lasting impact through precedent, but also because it would demonstrate that the secular community has the expertise, capability, and teeth to advance European policy. That would be a real victory. If Western European organizations could help fund these cases in Eastern Europe—where they are likely to fail in national courts but have a chance at the European Court of Human Rights—it could foster meaningful cooperation between European actors.
We are also planning other lawsuits. For example, Hungary banned vasectomies in 2014. Under the law, you must either be 40 years old or have three children to undergo the procedure, which is an absurd violation of human rights. The official justification was demographics. I am not joking—that is written into the law’s reasoning: declining demographics as a reason to restrict one of the most fundamental and intimate rights. Abortion is legal, contraception is legal, so the restriction is disproportionate and inconsistent. I think there is a strong chance the European Court of Human Rights would reject such a ban. That would also have a wider European effect, because several countries still restrict vasectomies and female sterilization. I could only bring a case as a man, but it would pave the way for women to challenge these restrictions as well.
I view the European Secularist Network as a platform to pool resources for strategic legal action and to lobby politicians. It can demonstrate that secularism is not an abstract philosophical notion but a central framework for European politics, one that offers fundamental tools to confront some of today’s biggest challenges.
Jacobsen: Excellent. Gáspár, thank you very much. Appreciate it.
Békés: Thank you.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Vocal.Media
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/12/09
Dr. Marcus Anthony Hunter is a professor at UCLA holding the Scott Waugh Endowed Chair in the Social Sciences, with appointments in Sociology and African American Studies. He served as the inaugural chair of UCLA’s African American Studies department and previously was President of the Association of Black Sociologists. Hunter is a co-author of Chocolate Cities: The Black Map of American Life, which examines Black urban formation and the geographies of power, and author of Radical Reparations: Healing the Soul of a Nation.
Dayvon Love is a Baltimore-based community organizer, public intellectual, and reparations advocate who directs public policy efforts at Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle. He frames reparations within the Pan-African and Black nationalist traditions, emphasizing community control, institution-building, and resisting the elite capture of reparative resources.
Nkechi Taifa is a civil and human rights attorney, scholar-activist, and longtime leader in the reparations movement. She is President & CEO of The Taifa Group, LLC and Executive Director of the Reparation Education Project. Taifa is a founding member of N’COBRA, an inaugural commissioner of the National African American Reparations Commission (NAARC), and formerly Advocacy Director for Criminal Justice at the Open Society Foundations. She has served on the DC Commission on Human Rights, chaired that body (2007–2014), sits on the Corrections Information Council, and has testified before Congress and numerous justice bodies.
In this interview with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Hunter, Love, and Taifa explore reparations through policy, history, and practice. Dr. Marcus Anthony Hunter explains AB 7 authorizes lineage-based admissions preferences, not mandates. Dayvon Love stresses community control and sovereignty over elite-only deals. Nkechi Taifa outlines multifaceted remedies (nationhood, culture, education, health, trauma, wealth) and corrects misconceptions about individual payouts and present-day responsibility. The panel highlights misunderstandings, the role of faith communities in repentance and advocacy, and the importance of truth paired with repair. International reference points—CARICOM’s Ten-Point Plan and South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission—inform U.S. choices. Despite political headwinds, organizers urge unapologetic, sustained action and measurable programs that build Black collective power.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What is the current context for AB 7 and its nuances?
Dr. Marcus Anthony Hunter: AB 7 gives California colleges and universities lawful room to consider an admissions preference for descendants of U.S. slavery. The intent is not only to acknowledge that history but to recognize what these students may contribute as incoming undergraduates, thereby enriching the educational environment for everyone. AB 7 authorizes lineage-based preference; it does not mandate it.
Jacobsen: Regarding reducing elite-only negotiations and ensuring more community control over discussions about reparations—what mechanisms might help?
Dayvon Love: It is essential to set context. The demand for reparations emerges from traditions rooted in revolutionary Pan-Africanist and Black nationalist worldviews. People often confuse economic inclusion with sovereignty and reparations; the latter grows from a worldview that recognizes Black societies predate 500 years of European domination and sustained institutions that preserved life and stability.
So for me, community control is key. While good policy includes access to higher education and social programs, reparations at their root are about investing in Black people’s capacity to manage, operate, and control their own institutions. The institutions that secure quality of life must remain central so benefits reach the many, not just a few elites.
Jacobsen: From a civil and human-rights perspective—and based on your prior successes—what strategic steps help states innovate without wasting time or repeating mistakes?
Nkechi Taifa: By “previous successes,” I point to the half-century of reparations work that helped bring the movement from the margins to the mainstream. We now see state and local reparations commissions across the country, as well as academic and faith institutions engaging with questions of right and necessity. California was the first state to establish a reparations task force by statute (AB 3121), which delivered comprehensive recommendations to the Legislature—an achievement that should have been federal first, but the state acted.
Momentum will continue from these state and local efforts, and we expect the federal government to join in eventually. We should view the glass as half full: California’s progress, Evanston’s implementation, and commissions in places like New York and Illinois are genuine reasons for optimism—even in challenging political times. Academic and religious institutions are also confronting their own histories. These developments, despite the presence of political headwinds, give cause for celebration.
Jacobsen: What would an ideal, generalized definition and outcome of reparations look like—culturally, educationally, legally, and psychologically—for those dealing with intergenerational trauma?
Taifa: My mantra has always been this: the harms from enslavement and its aftermath were multifaceted, and so the remedies must be multifaceted as well. Reparations can take many forms, tailored to equitably address the wide range of injuries sustained as a result of slavery and its legacies.
The National Coalition of Blacks for Reparations in America (N’COBRA), more than 35 years ago, outlined five primary areas of injury:
Nationhood and sovereignty: The denial of self-determination and sovereignty that Dayvon mentioned earlier.
Culture and identity: The destruction of African culture and the denial of identity.
Education: The denial of the right to education during slavery, where teaching an enslaved person to read or write was a crime, sometimes punishable by death.
Health: Systematic inequities, including torturous health experiments and the degradation of health that continues to this day.
Psychological trauma: What we now call post-traumatic slave syndrome, including epigenetic inheritance of trauma that runs through generations.
Another area of injury is the racial wealth gap created during enslavement and sustained through Black Codes, Jim Crow, apartheid laws, ongoing discrimination in employment and housing, and the criminal punishment system. Enslavement created a dual system of punishment that persists to this day. Remedies must address all of these areas of injury.
With respect to a settlement—I say settlement because no amount of monetary recompense can ever atone for the incalculable injuries sustained by the descendants of African people enslaved in the United States.
Jacobsen: Marcus and Dayvon, would you like to add anything?
Hunter: Yes, certainly. I echo everything the legend Nkechi just said. What I would emphasize is that reparations already have an existing definition. The key question is: reparations for what? In this case, it is reparations for slavery in America, and for all the harms and injuries it inflicted both on the nation as a whole and especially on those who were enslaved and their descendants.
The goal is to craft something comprehensive, potentially ongoing in perpetuity, until such time that the systems and inequities generated by slavery no longer exist.
Jacobsen: Dayvon, would you like to weigh in?
Love: They said it well.
Jacobsen: Misunderstandings and disinformation about reparations exist on a spectrum. On one end, some deliberately spread falsehoods for political purposes. On the other hand, some people misunderstand.
Hunter: A significant category of misunderstanding is the belief that reparations mean individual payments. People often imagine Johnny Smith paying money out of his own pocket to Keisha Jackson. That is wildly inaccurate.
The etymology of reparations is “a state of repair.” Reparations are a claim against governments—federal, state, county, municipal—that legalized, sanctioned, and authorized the dehumanization and enslavement of African people without compensation for their labour. It is not a matter of individual blame.
Jacobsen: Dayvon and Nkechi, do you have any final thoughts on misunderstandings?
Love: Yes. One central point is that most people are unaware of the mechanics of slavery itself: 246 years of enslaved Africans providing free labour, alongside the genocide of Indigenous peoples, form the foundation of what is now the United States.
That is the basis for America’s position as a global superpower. All the comforts enjoyed today in the United States are predicated on the suffering of colonized peoples, both here and abroad.
So, when people see America as a generally just nation that made “mistakes” in the past, it becomes difficult for them to understand why reparations are a just and necessary demand. That is why framing the issue historically and structurally is so essential.
I would argue the most crucial point is that the current material and historical situation of the United States is predicated on the misery, plunder, theft, and dehumanization of people of African descent. If we begin with that truth, the demand for reparations makes far more sense.
The second point I’d add, in terms of intentional misunderstanding, is this: some people believe the purpose of reparations is to get white Americans to understand the oppression of Black people. That’s a misconception. The fundamental theory of change is about people of African descent and other communities of colour building collective political power—federally, as well as at state and local levels. Wherever Black communities have the political potential, reparations should be put on the table and pursued. Building this power is essential to sustaining momentum.
Taifa: Another misconception is the argument that people alive today should not be responsible for paying reparations for harms they did not personally commit, or that their ancestors may not have even been present for. My response is that we all stand on the shoulders of those who came before us. Although today’s white Americans may not have committed the original crimes, many occupy privileged positions because of them and continue to benefit from a society steeped in white supremacy. There is no statute of limitations on human rights violations.
To clarify this, I often cite the example of Japanese American reparations. When the U.S. government paid reparations in 1988 to survivors of internment during World War II, my tax dollars contributed to those payments. I had nothing to do with Japanese internment, but the debt existed, and it had to be paid. In the same way, the debt of slavery remains.
Finally, another misconception is that reparations are only about money—a simple check. That is not the case. Reparations must be comprehensive. A settlement can take many forms, addressing the countless injuries sustained from chattel slavery and its continuing legacies.
Jacobsen: In American history, faith communities have played a complex role in relation to African American communities. On the one hand, churches served as spaces of refuge and centers for civil rights organizing. On the other hand, theology was historically used to justify slavery. Given this history, what role can faith communities play in advancing reparations today?
Hunter: Faith communities are essential. Christian missionaries were not only colonizers but also architects of a distorted Christianity that sanctioned slavery. As a result, there is a need for repentance within faith traditions. Faith leaders have a responsibility to participate in the process of repair, which encompasses spiritual restoration alongside material and structural changes.
Religion—and Christianity in particular—was weaponized to dehumanize African people and justify slavery. Because of this, there must be a practice of repentance among faith leaders. They should not only preach about reparations in their pews and pulpits but also advocate publicly in leadership spaces.
Taifa: Faith communities were not only complicit but, in many cases, progenitors of slavery and the transatlantic slave trade. I prefer not to use that term, but it carries that connotation. From papal edicts in the 15th century onward, religious authorities provided theological justification for enslavement. Today, some institutions are beginning to acknowledge their roles. For example, the Jesuits sold 272 enslaved people to Louisiana to keep Georgetown University from bankruptcy; they have since engaged in reparatory dialogue with descendants. The Virginia Theological Seminary and Princeton Theological Seminary have committed to reparations programs. Episcopal dioceses and other denominations have also pledged funds as moral statements recognizing the church’s complicity.
Love: On the other hand, Black churches and other Black faith traditions have historically served as centers of political advocacy and organizing. These institutions must prioritize reparations at the center of their political engagement, activating and mobilizing congregations. This spiritual and organizational energy will remain essential fuel for building the political power needed to advance reparations nationwide.
Jacobsen: Another practical issue is that people already juggle family responsibilities—taking children to school, dentist appointments, doctor appointments, and managing their own needs. That leaves limited time and energy. How do you sustain momentum for reparations when community members face these daily constraints?
Taifa: Sorry, I am almost laughing. My history in the reparations movement has been one of working full-time jobs and then doing this organizing work after hours, late into the night. There were no foundations or grants in those days. We did what had to be done.
It reminds me of the period after slavery, when mutual aid societies were the grassroots infrastructure for Black survival and advancement. They organized and mobilized without institutional support.
Today, we actually have more resources and more access to information. But at the same time, we face new challenges. Efforts to ban books and restrict the accurate teaching of history make our work harder. While information is available like never before, there are powerful attempts to erase it. That makes it even more urgent to push reparations from the margins into the mainstream, where they belong.
Love: Grounding conversations about reparations in the actual work that communities are doing is a great way to raise consciousness beyond traditional political advocacy spaces. For example, here in Baltimore, we’ve been working on a variety of reparations initiatives, including a bill at the state level that would have established a commission to study how to implement reparations policy in Maryland. The Legislative Black Caucus championed that bill, but the governor unfortunately vetoed it. Work is now underway to override the veto.
The conversations that emerged from this process have been very valuable. Because the Legislative Black Caucus was leading the effort, and the governor involved was Black, it sparked debates among people who might not otherwise have engaged. Suddenly, Marylanders with a wide range of opinions were talking seriously about reparations. This demonstrates how grounding conversations in ongoing political work creates new opportunities for education and dialogue.
Hunter: I agree with Dayvon and Nkechi. One of the key observations we’ve made is that the more people are educated about reparations, the more they support the idea. Much of the resistance stems from a lack of education or being misinformed by distorted narratives and deliberate disinformation. Anything that we do that increases real knowledge and cuts through confusion is a net positive.
Jacobsen: What are some distinct examples where proper education on reparations has punctured mainstream media channels?
Taifa: Let me give a personal example that came to mind immediately. Years ago, the Hollywood film “Rosewood” was released. It depicted the desecration and massacre of the Black community of Rosewood, Florida—a history I knew nothing about at the time. After that film, reparative efforts were made for the descendants of the massacre. For me, it showed how popular media can serve as a powerful educational tool about abuses in the not-so-distant past.
Hunter: I would also add a few cultural touchpoints. The HBO series Watchmen, with Regina King, dramatized the Tulsa massacre and wove in themes of reparations, even showing genealogical testing to determine eligibility. That brought the issue into popular consciousness in a striking way.
Another important example is the campaign to return Bruce’s Beach in Manhattan Beach, California, to the descendants of the Black family from whom it was taken. That case helped people understand that reparations aren’t just about something in the distant past. They apply to very real instances in which Black families were deprived of land, wealth, and opportunities within living memory. Once the community learned the history, they strongly supported returning the property.
Love: Yes, those are good examples of how pop culture has provided some inroads for raising consciousness. That said, I remain generally suspicious of pop culture as a vehicle for real advocacy. I have low expectations for how much pop culture alone can raise consciousness in a way that is actionable on an issue as complex as reparations.
As Nkechi said, the work that she and many others have done in the reparations movement over the decades has built the strong foundation we stand on today. That grassroots, community-based engagement has created momentum. Pop culture can supplement that, but it cannot replace movement work. Advocacy grounded in communities will always be the priority.
Jacobsen: Building on your point about skepticism of pop culture—what are some times or areas where pop culture presents a sympathetic viewpoint but does so inaccurately? That could be both helpful and damaging.
Love: Yes, one clear example is Black Panther. It has become a massively popular franchise, presenting some positive concepts. But it also sets up a false dichotomy. The binary between Killmonger and T’Challa frames the struggle in problematic ways: one side represents sovereignty and self-determination, but is disconnected from the masses, while the other side advocates for integrationist leadership.
That binary has reinforced divisions within the African diaspora and influenced some groups like ADOS (American Descendants of Slavery) and FBA (Foundational Black Americans) to see reparations through a narrow, us-versus-them lens. It has exacerbated disunity at times. That doesn’t make Black Panther a bad film, but it shows how pop culture can shape conversations in ways that are not entirely helpful for reparations advocacy.
Taifa: Comedians have sometimes made light of reparations, thereby trivializing the issue. That hasn’t been particularly helpful either. But there are positive cultural interventions. For example, FirstRepair recently collaborated with hip hop artists to create an entire album of reparations-themed music.
Additionally, actress Erica Alexander and her company, Colour Farm Media, produced the film “The Big Payback.” It followed Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee as she championed the federal reparations bill, H.R. 40, alongside Robin Rue Simmons, who pioneered the Evanston, Illinois, reparations plan. That film made the issue accessible and engaging for a wider audience.
Hunter: Yes, I would like to offer my agreement with both Dayvon and Nkechi, and I’ll expand on that. Pop culture has not done enough. We don’t yet have a critical mass of examples to point to and say: here’s where artists and creators leaned into reparations in a way that parallels how they’ve leaned into police murders or police brutality. Those have become major cultural touchpoints, but they have not been explicitly tied back to reparative justice.
For example, the phrase “Black Lives Matter” became primarily associated with police violence, without being anchored in reparations. That disconnect shows we need far more representation in music, film, and media that ties these struggles together. We need artists across mediums to intentionally connect reparations to the American origin story, because reparations are not a separate issue—it is central to the very fabric of the nation’s history.
Jacobsen: What about under the rapid and often chaotic policy shifts we’ve seen—first under Trump, now under the second Trump administration? How does this outlook present itself for broader reparations efforts in the next three or so years?
Hunter: This current administration is a reminder: you can’t go silent just because your so-called friends are in power. You have to push, regardless of who holds office. If Democrats had shown a genuine appetite to act, we would already be discussing a federal commission report on reparations. But there was resistance and reluctance, even when they controlled all three branches of government.
In this context, we need an unapologetic stance—no compromise, no negotiation. Craft demands that are strong, anticipate resistance, and refuse to be watered down for political palatability.
Taifa: I agree 100 percent with Dr. Hunter: now is the time to advance full force. Our claim is just. It is not imaginary—it’s historical, and it must happen here. What’s striking is that reparations have already been proposed for other groups. The current administration supported reparations for families of January 6 insurrectionists and reparations for certain immigrant groups fleeing apartheid systems abroad. But when it comes to Black Americans, descendants of enslaved Africans, reparative justice is treated as controversial. That double standard must be confronted.
Love: Yes. Trump represents the heart of what America has long been—an expression of white nationalism, centred on maintaining white control of institutions necessary for meeting basic needs. Too often, approaches to reparations and other Black issues have been framed as appeals to the humanity of those in power, assuming they care about justice. Trump’s election reaffirmed what I already knew: we cannot rely on that appeal.
As Nkechi has said, we must be clear that no one is coming to save us. We have to organize ourselves from a position of strength and power—not trying to appeal to Trump and the Republicans, or even to a Democratic Party that has avoided or watered down this issue. We must remain strong in our advocacy for our community despite living in a society hostile to the humanity of people of African descent.
We are living in challenging times, but we must view these challenges as a mandate to redouble our efforts. I have said before that hope itself is revolutionary, and we must not allow despair to take root.
Taifa: The lesson from this administration is that our communities are watching. Our consistency and our courage are what matter. When rights are under siege, the demand for reparations becomes even more urgent. We must not shift away—we will not shift away. What we are doing is recommitting ourselves to the mission.
Jacobsen: The UN General Assembly’s 80th session just wrapped up. The International Universal Human Rights Framework serves as a crucial reference point when examining these issues. For international reparations efforts, what about the Caribbean? What about the case of South Africa? How can those inform current efforts in the United States and beyond?
Taifa: With respect to the Caribbean, CARICOM—the Caribbean Community—instituted a Ten-Point Plan for reparatory justice around 2014–2015. Many of us in the United States agree with that framework 100 percent. They are organizing, mobilizing, and calling upon their European colonizers to make amends. The South African model was different. It was a truth and reconciliation model.
Hunter: Yes, what Nkechi is getting at in the South African case is essential. One thing that has been central to our position in the United States is this: we don’t want truth without repair, which is what South Africa essentially had. But we also don’t want to repair without truth. In the U.S., there have been preliminary efforts to establish a truth commission. The idea is to make sure truth and repair go hand in hand.
Another key point is international standards. The UN framework defines restitution as returning the person to the condition they were in before the harm or injury occurred. In the U.S. context, that is impossible. We can’t put the descendants of enslaved Africans back in their villages in Nigeria, Ghana, or Benin.
However, what we can do is acknowledge that this displacement occurred and provide remedies that help communities move forward whole. That’s why some international reparations models—such as those applied in Rwanda or Germany—don’t map neatly onto the U.S. case. We’re dealing with an involuntarily displaced population that cannot be “returned” in the continental sense.
There’s also a complicating factor: some descendants of Africans enslaved in America raise claims not only against the U.S. government but also against certain West African states that participated in the capture and sale of their ancestors.
Love: I would add something relevant when looking at South Africa. A significant controversy in recent years has been the policy debate over land expropriation without compensation. That was spearheaded by the Economic Freedom Fighters, a radical left-wing Pan-Africanist party outside of the ruling coalition. It demonstrates how the question of reparations remains a contested issue, even in societies that have formally addressed the problems of truth and reconciliation.
Many of the Economic Freedom Fighters were originally members of the ANC, Nelson Mandela’s party. They splintered off because they felt the ANC was not strong or radical enough on repairing the damage caused by colonialism and apartheid. One of the key policy debates was the issue of land expropriation without compensation.
About 80–85 percent of the land in South Africa is still owned by white South Africans. The EFF pushed for a policy that would allow the state to seize land and redistribute it to those from whom it had been taken. That was highly controversial, to the point where even Donald Trump threatened sanctions against South Africa.
Many in the West framed it as an attack on the principle of private property rights—arguments that often come up when people resist reparations more broadly. The policy did move forward, though not in as strong a form as the EFF wanted. Still, it serves as an essential example. As Brother Hunter mentioned, South Africa had reconciliation without repair. Whenever movements push for real repair that shifts power, the level of resistance is enormous. That pattern is consistent across contexts and is instructive for how we think about reparations in the United States.
Jacobsen: Do you have final wrap-up thoughts or quotes that best represent your views on this topic?
Hunter: Yes. One quote that has stayed with me comes from Benin, and I’ve shared it often in gatherings. People say that slaves were taken from Africa. This is not true. People were taken from Africa and then made into slaves. That distinction is fundamental. Our advocacy is about reminding the world of the humanity that was stolen, and repairing the story of human beings, not just “slaves.” This work is about restoring people to wholeness.
Love: I’ll close with a practical note. Earlier, I mentioned the work we’re doing in Maryland to establish a reparations commission to study and implement policy. I want to urge everyone listening—if you have connections in Maryland, please reach out to your legislators. The General Assembly reconvenes in January 2026, and one of the first issues on the table will be overriding the governor’s veto of the bill.
Please continue to support the work, both in Maryland and across the country, where so many are engaged in advancing reparations. For those who want to get involved, more information is available through Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle in Baltimore, which is coordinating efforts to secure this veto override.
Taifa: I would say that reparations can be a vehicle for transformative change. In fact, reparations may be the only policy capable of comprehensively addressing the crux of racism and inequity—the harms caused by government and related policies from the enslavement era that still manifest today in nearly every aspect of life. From health and wealth inequities to educational disparities, cultural deprivation, and mass incarceration, reparations are uniquely positioned to provide redress.
It’s a new day, with new energy and new possibilities. The fruits we see today grew from seeds planted and nurtured by generations before us. Reparations are no longer an abstract idea or an unreachable dream. They are increasingly a tangible reality—achievable in our lifetime.
Jacobsen: Thank you, everyone, for your time and for sharing your expertise today. It was a privilege to hear your insights.
Hunter: Absolutely. Thank you so much.
Love: Thank you all for being here. I hope you have a great weekend.
Taifa: Yes, thank you. Take care, everyone.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Vocal.Media
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/30
This article examines recent abuse-related cases in British Columbia’s evangelical landscape. It outlines criminal charges against Pastor Edwin Alvarez of an unnamed Metro Vancouver church for alleged sexual interference and assault against children between 2017 and 2021. It then reviews two active civil lawsuits against Pastor Art Lucier and Kelowna Harvest Fellowship, where plaintiffs allege long-term grooming and sexual abuse beginning in childhood, alongside institutional negligence. The article contrasts these ongoing actions with a separate Kelowna case in which a former youth pastor, anonymized as “CM,” received an 18-month custodial sentence after pleading guilty to child sex offences.
Continuing from the previous piece, Pastor Edwin Alvarez of a Metro Vancouver church had a number of child-focused charges, this is part of the wider Evangelical rivers in which Langley’s Christians can tend to swim.
In January, 2023, the New Westminster Police Department announced Pastor Alvarez was arrested and charged after a crime investigation led by the New Westminster Police Major Crime Unit beginning in the spring of 2022 into multiple reports of sexual interference against children.
The alleged incidents took place between 2017 and 2021. Alvarez faces three counts of sexual interference and three counts of sexual assault. Police described Alvarez as a pastor at a church in the Metropolitan area. It was at a small, unnamed church in the Metro Vancouver region.
Another church in Kelowna follows these similar across numerous churches in British Columbia. Harvest Church in Kelowna was covered in the Langley Advance Times fits within the wider BC Evangelical mapping. The lawsuits and coverage refer to the congregation as Kelowna Harvest Fellowship and its affiliated Harvest Ministries International (Harvest Church).
In 2025, Pastor Art Lucier went into two civil lawsuits based on a filing to the BC Supreme Court, brought by lawyer Morgyn Chandler on behalf of two women, Jasmine Hall and Ayla Thompson. The plaintiffs allege grooming and sexual assault spanning years. These allegations include an abuse of a foster child and a young woman in a ministry context.
Both plaintiffs state Lucier groomed them as foster children when 11 and 14 years old, respectively, while he was pastoring in Kitimat. The abuse continued for many years and into his later ministry base in Kelowna. Lucier is described as a spiritual authority who used prayer, church events, and pastoral meetings for abuse.
Further allegations included institutional negligence by the church, such as a failure to supervise to act on warning signs, and to protect vulnerable people within the care of the church. The statements of claim assert that Kelowna Harvest Fellowship and Harvest Ministries International created an “operational culture” enabling alleged grooming and sexual abuse. Complaints were mishandled or silenced.
Lucier and Harvest Church, apparently unlike the other cases from the previous article, publicly deny the allegations. In a public statement, Lucier and Harvest Ministries International called the allegations “completely and totally false.” No findings have been made on the merits so far, though the case in young. Both civil actions remain before the courts. No liability findings or judicial determinations of fact have yet been made against any defendant.
Another Kelowna case include a former youth pastor from early 2024 who was sentenced to 18 months in jail for child sex offences. They plead guilty to one count of sexual assault and one count of telecommunicating to lure a child under 18 as part of a plea agreement. The church is not named in public reportage. The man had worked as a youth pastor at the church for years. Complaints about the behaviour emerged before charges were finally laid on the youth pastor.
Reporting notes allegations surfaced in 2020. He was initially charged with 17 offences. These included seven counts of sexual assault, three counts of sexual exploitation, involving four complainants.
The reason for not naming the church and only listing the offender by initials is the protection of the victims’ identities. Local coverage refers to the offender only by the pseudonymous initials “CM.” These match some of the thematic elements of some of the other reportage, including youth-work, delays in reportage, patterns, and a plea plus custodial sentence.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Vocal.Media
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/30
Langley, with its dense Evangelical presence, has seen serious abuse allegations within local churches. One civil case involves Pastor Barry Buzza of Northside Foursquare Church, accused of grooming and sexually abusing a teenage congregant who sought pastoral guidance, with claims the church ignored warning signs. Another case centers on Pastor Samuel Emerson of Cloverdale Christian Fellowship Church, who faced multiple charges related to sexual misconduct involving youth; he was ultimately convicted on one count of sexual assault, with other charges and those against his wife dismissed. These cases highlight patterns of spiritual authority, impunity, and inadequate safeguarding in regional Evangelical institutions.
I grew up in Langley, which has a significant Evangelical base of the country. I infrequently find value in covering some older stories and controversies in community, because I focus a lot, internationally. A focus on the local is necessary, at times, for balance in emphasis. Churches tend to be forces of impunity and social coercion in communities. Another facet is explicit crimes rather than community bullying.
One case a few years ago, 2022, was Pastor Barry Buzza and Northside Foursquare Church. Buzza is founder of Northside Foursquare Church in Coquitlam and a former president of Foursquare Church in Canada. A woman in Langley alleged grooming and sexual abuse over many years by Buzza. The relationship began when the Langley woman was a teenager. In the civil claim, she is anonymized as “A.B.” and described as a Northside congregant. SHe bega attending in her mid-20s. She alleges the sexual abuse began in 2007. She was 28 and Buzza was 60. This happened in the context of pastoral counselling and domestic-violence support.
Buzza positioned himself as a spiritual mentor as well as a father figure. This gradually escalated physical touch into sexual touching and intercourse. A teenager sought spiritual guidance from an Evangelical pastor in Langley. Buzza’s pastoral role was at Northside Church in Coquitlam, which she attended from Langley. Their relationship developed this into a sexual relationship during and after international church travel and one-on-one counselling sessions.
The allegations are severe, including psychological, spiritual, and sexual grooming. There are claims of exploitation and negligence, and sexual assaults and battery. The civil suit alleges Buzza reignited the abusive dynamics. Court filings describe an initial phase of alleged abuse beginning around 2007.
One allegation included a groping on a flight from Israel while his wife slept and then sexual contact at his daughter’s home. There were repeated sexual encounters at a condo he helped arrange for her. Allegedly, he left money after visits.
Between 2012 and 2013, he told her he had been diagnosed with liver cancer. This brought the Langley woman (Northside congregant) back into the home of the pastor seeking spiritual care. Allegedly, the abuse had resumed from there. This callback was the basis for arguing that she should work from his home. The relations and abuse continued until late 2014.
According to court filings, there are arguments Northside Foursquare Church (Northside Church), the Foursquare Gospel Church of Canada, and the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel knew or reasonably should have known the warning signs and failed in the duty of care to protect the girl.
This case is a civil suit, not a criminal conviction so far. As of late 2025, the case remains before the civil courts. No findings have been made on the merits.None of the allegations against Buzza or the churches have been proven in court.
Allegations need a proper text in a full civil trial regarding the merits of the case. Foursquare as a church has been under wider pressures regarding a history of clergy-sexual-abuse allegations. Media and court records in the United States and Canada document multiple other clergy-abuse suits and complaints involving Foursquare pastors or ministries over many decades.
Several Northside Foursquare Church abuse cases or related abuse cases have arisen across North America, e.g., Oregon and Washington State. These have fueled concerns about the denomination’s handling of misconduct. This has prompted public scrutiny of the leadership oversight and institutional reporting practices. The denomination has, to its credit, implemented a number of safeguarding policies while transparency is lacking in these cases.
Another case was the Cloverdale Christian Fellowship Church. The congregation is based in Surrey, British Columbia, in the same broad Evangelical corridor as Langley. This church, though in Cloverdale, is in the same beltway of Evangelicalism as Langley. Many residents have been following these cases closely.
Pastor Samuel Emerson had multiple charges and one conviction from this church as a youth pastor at the church. He held this position for eight years. The original charges stem back to 2017 with 13 counts of sexual assault, 11 counts of being in a position of authority and touching a person for a sexual purpose, 1 count of sexual touching of a person under 16. His wife, Madelaine Emerson, in fat, faced three related charges including sexual assault and uttering threats. Police and media reports state that the alleged offences occurred between roughly 2013 and 2017.
Allegations include the Emerson family home and the Cowichan River Bible Camp where church youth events were held. The trial was held in Surrey Provincial Court over 2019. By the time of trial, Emerson was being tried on a reduced indictment of five counts of sexual assault, two counts of touching a young person for a sexual purpose, and one count of sexual interference of a person under 16. In November, 2019, he was convicted of one count of sexual assault. He was acquitted on the majority of the remaining charges. Madelaine Emerson was acquitted on all counts.
The judge found one complainant’s consent was undone (vitiated) by the conduct and position of Emerson. Emerson was sentence to two years in jail with a 10-year firearm prohibition. The BC Court of Appeal dismissed the attempt to overturn the conviction in 2022. A three-judge panel held there was no reversible error in the trial judge’s assessment of consent and abuse of authority, so the conviction and sentence remain in force. The verdict and sentence remain intact. Separately, in a distinct case involving the same church, former elder Brian Batke pleaded guilty in 2020 to a sexual assault stemming from a 2005 incident.
These have further intensified local concern about leadership oversight and safeguarding at Cloverdale Christian Fellowship.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Vocal.Media
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/24
Afghanistan is facing an extreme human-rights emergency, with Taliban policies shutting girls out of secondary and university education and denying 2.2 million girls schooling beyond the primary level. Women are barred from most work, public life, and basic freedoms, while forced and child marriage has surged. In this crisis, feminist media outlets—AWNA, Nimrokh, Rukhshana, Radio Begum, Begum TV, and Zan Times—have emerged in Afghanistan and in exile, documenting abuses and defending women’s voices despite escalating repression.
Afghanistan represents one of the most significant human rights crises in the world today, disproportionately impacting Afghan women. The Taliban have barred girls from secondary school, making Afghanistan the only country to impose a nationwide ban on girls’ secondary education. This was extended in 2022 to university education. UNESCO and UNICEF estimate that about 2.2 million girls are denied schooling beyond the primary level. The United Nations and human-rights bodies have characterized these measures as contributing to an emerging category of gender apartheid and to the crime against humanity of persecution based on gender.
In addition, women have been banned from most government jobs and from large parts of the private sector. The Taliban have barred Afghan women from working for most national and international NGOs and for UN agencies in Afghanistan, and have excluded them from many public spaces. They have imposed strict movement and dress controls.
There has been a surge in marrying off daughters under conditions of forced and child marriage. Many families fear that their daughters could be forced to marry Taliban members and see early marriage as a preventative measure. There is significant gender-based violence and violation of bodily integrity, with almost no access to legal protection or remedy.
Several women-focused, often explicitly feminist, media outlets emerged in the midst of this: starting around 2015/2016 with the Afghanistan Women’s News Agency (AWNA), then followed by Nimrokh Media, Rukhshana Media, Radio Begum, Begum TV, and Zan Times.
AWNA was founded in 2015/2016 as a women-focused news agency and multimedia platform with its original base in Herat, Afghanistan, and is now partly operating in exile. It was founded by Faisal Karimi, an Afghan journalist and former professor at Herat University, who also founded the Afghanistan Institute for Research and Media Studies and Kaashi Media. The primary languages of AWNA are Dari/Persian. It focuses on gender-based violence, media freedom, and women’s rights and political participation.
Nimrokh Media was founded in 2017 in Kabul as a weekly print magazine and is now primarily digital. It was founded by Fatima Roshanian, an Afghan political science and journalism graduate who has conducted field research across multiple provinces in Afghanistan. Its primary language is Dari, with some content in English. Nimrokh focuses on gender equality, taboo topics, and women’s political participation.
Rukhshana Media was founded in late 2020 in Afghanistan and now has its editorial base in London. It was founded by Zahra Joya, a Hazara journalist who attended school disguised as a boy during the first Taliban regime. She trained in law, then switched to journalism, and used her personal savings as the launch funding for Rukhshana, named in memory of a woman stoned to death in 2015. Its primary languages are Dari and English. Rukhshana focuses on domestic and sexual violence, reproductive health, forced and child marriage, and the bans on women’s education and work.
Radio Begum and Begum TV were founded on 8 March 2021 and 8 March 2024, respectively. They are a women-focused radio station and satellite TV channel under the Begum Organization for Women. Radio Begum began in Kabul, while Begum TV is based in Paris. They were founded by Hamida Aman, an Afghan-Swiss journalist and media entrepreneur. She left Afghanistan as a child and grew up in Switzerland. She returned after 2001 to work in media development, founded Awaz, a production company, and later the Begum Organization for Women to defend women’s rights. Their areas of focus include women’s education, access to information, and women’s public voices under gender apartheid.
Zan Times was founded in 2022 in Canada with a dispersed team in exile and inside Afghanistan. Zahra Nader, an Afghan-Canadian Hazara journalist, founded it. She began working as a reporter in Kabul, worked with the New York Times bureau, and moved to Canada for graduate studies in gender and women’s studies. She founded Zan Times in response to the Taliban’s return to power. Its primary languages are English and Dari/Persian. Areas of focus include women, LGBTQI+ communities, environmental harm, and structural abuses committed by the Taliban.
Where these will develop, or who will found the next Afghan feminist media outlet?
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Vocal.Media
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/23
In this exchange, Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner explore the P vs NP problem and its philosophical echoes. Rosner leans toward the mainstream view that P likely does not equal NP, drawing a parallel to Gödel’s incompleteness theorems. Jacobsen expands the discussion with Tarski’s meta-language framework and Chaitin’s arguments about irreducible complexity, connecting them to both biological systems and modern AI. The conversation emphasizes that mathematical uncertainty does not endanger reality; instead, it reveals intrinsic limits on what computation can achieve. The pair illustrate this with the traveling salesman problem, an archetype of explosive combinatorial complexity in the real world.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Do you think P equals NP or no? P equals problems that can be solved efficiently, in polynomial time, by a deterministic computer. NP equals problems whose proposed solutions can be verified efficiently, in polynomial time.
Rick Rosner: I don’t know. It’s not something I’ve looked at recently, or maybe at all.
Jacobsen: So it’s again a deterministic computer. The question is whether problems that can be solved efficiently are equivalent to problems whose solutions can be verified efficiently. The vast majority of people say no, but we don’t know.
Rosner: I’d lean toward no, though that is a mainstream view rather than a Gödelian one. Gödel said there are things in math that may not be provable one way or the other. That’s Gödel’s incompleteness theorem, right?
Jacobsen: Yeah, that’s true. There are three viewpoints—Tarski, Chaitin, and Gödel. Gödel is the most famous, but I think Chaitin is the one who deals with complexity—specifically algorithmic information theory and limits on provability expressed in terms of description length rather than biological complexity. He shows that certain facts about mathematical objects can be unprovable because proving them would require more information than a given formal system can encode. And Tarski showed that in a set-theoretic or mathematical system, truth for that system cannot be defined within the system itself, requiring a meta-language.
Rosner: But then you get a sort of—anyway, my answer in general is that yes, these things exist as part of the mathematical world we’re in, and they probably have real-world equivalents, but they don’t blow up the world. I don’t think there’s anything in math that makes math catastrophically inconsistent. I believe the four basic functions on a basic calculator rest on standard arithmetic, which is consistent relative to widely accepted axioms such as ZFC, and within that framework, operations like addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division are well-defined and do not yield contradictory results when rules are applied correctly. At least that fundamental structure hangs together. And there may be more obscure areas of math where, A, you can’t prove anything, and B, in the more dire sense, you might not be able to establish a consistent foundation. But maybe not. Gödel just said there’s stuff you can’t prove one way or the other within a given sufficiently strong formal system. In any case, none of this creates a tear in the fabric of reality that eventually sucks everything into oblivion. And yes, some problems are fantastically hard to calculate definitively. The easiest and most famous problem that creates computational nightmares is the traveling salesman problem, where a salesperson starts in Pittsburgh and has to travel to N other cities—maybe back to Pittsburgh, maybe not, it doesn’t matter, it’s the same problem.
What is the shortest path that gets them to all the cities? That turns out to be a problem where computing the optimum path requires algorithms that grow exponentially in the worst case, and no polynomial-time algorithm is known for solving it exactly. It’s highly resistant to shortcuts. The more cities you add, the more computation you burn trying to reach the definitive optimal solution. It’s a huge computational problem if you insist on the absolute optimum. But you can also say “forget it,” once you get a solution that seems pretty good. If the salesperson has to travel to 35, 55, or 105 cities, you can take reasonable guesses about what might be a short route. You can sketch it out, or sketch out fifty different versions—which is easy for a computer. Probably none of them will be perfect, but they’ll cluster very close together. In many practical settings, heuristics and approximation algorithms find routes that are extremely close to optimal, sometimes within 1 percent of the true shortest distance. So you can say, “All right, here’s an order of cities, and it’s pretty good.” And the salesperson can ask, “But is it the shortest path?” And the boss can answer, “Maybe. Probably not. Just go sell your stuff and don’t worry about it.” Issues like this matter, but the world doesn’t depend on them.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Vocal.Media
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/18
Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner explore an “informational cosmology” where the universe is a relational information-processing system. Rosner defines information as selecting one outcome from many possible outcomes, which only counts when events leave durable, readable records. They contrast transient and stable traces, from stellar reactions to human memories, and ask whether awareness matters to cosmic information. Questioning simple “universe as computer” models, they propose emergent, fuzzy properties that sharpen with scale, tied to quantum entanglement and probabilistic “leakiness.” The universe continually defines its own frame through changing relations, not absolute size or static digital bits evolving over time.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, we’ve had several ideas come up in the Informational Cosmology. One of them has to do with the degrees of freedom in a system and how we frame the universe as a relational system. I was thinking about the degrees of freedom in a relational system vis-à-vis information. The idea of a physics of relational degrees of freedom of information would be distinct from digital information, where this digital information is by definition distinctive and singular. You then have a matrix, or matrices, of information networks. That is a different idea from the emergent components of the system becoming the information insofar as they relate to one another. And that relation happens through time.
Rick Rosner: To preface what we’re talking about, we need the definition of information, which is: information is the choice of a specific outcome from a set of possible outcomes. The amount of information is related to how many possible outcomes there were and how unlikely the actual outcome was. For equally likely outcomes, more possible outcomes means more information when one outcome is selected.
If you throw a fair coin, you have two possible outcomes, and getting one of the two corresponds to one bit of information. If you roll a fair die that has a hundred sides, choosing one out of a hundred possibilities corresponds to more information than one out of two. That is the basic idea of information: the more possible outcomes you could have had, the more information is gained when you learn which outcome actually occurred. That would be a baseline definition. However, if you’re dealing with relationships among parts, it adds a different kind of layering to the definition of information.
The issue is that when you say “information within a system,” you then have to talk about what the system is. One system might be the entire universe, and every quantum event that leaves a stable, distinguishable record should, in principle, add information to the system’s history.
So we have to talk about what is required for information to count as information in this sense. The event has to leave a durable record—something that, at least in principle, could be read out later. For instance, in a star, an enormous number of quantum events occur every second—on the order of about 10³⁸ nuclear reactions per second in a star like the sun, plus vastly more particle interactions of other kinds. Most of those events don’t leave a separate, long-lived, macroscopically readable trace. One relatively durable event within a star might be nuclear fusion: a couple of deuterium nuclei come together to form a helium nucleus. That change in nuclei is very hard to undo and can be thought of as a kind of record of that interaction.
By contrast, exchanging heat-carrying photons in the center of the sun, where the temperature is extremely high, involves a huge number of interactions, but most of those photon scatterings don’t leave an independently accessible, persistent “record” that we can later identify as a specific individual event. You can infer that they are happening because the sun is extremely hot and photons are carrying the energy outward, but for a distant observer most of those individual interactions are not traceable as separate, durable events. Only a tiny fraction of photons eventually make it from the core to the surface and then escape into space, where their existence can, in principle, become part of the observable record.
So for the system to have any information in this sense, the event has to leave a distinctive representation in the state of the system—something that, at least in principle, could distinguish “this happened” from “this did not happen.”
Jacobsen: Well, even things that are transient, that don’t have an indefinitely durable existence but persist for a sufficient amount of time to have an impact on the system and change its subsequent evolution, can therefore change the net informational content of that system.
And we have human information systems, where we get sensory information and we have thoughts, and somehow information is processed within our awareness. We live in a world where there are many events that are at least temporarily durable. What we experience leaves traces in our nervous systems, in our memory, and in the physical records we create, memories persist until we die, and our brains break down, and then all that information is lost because the structures that held the information can no longer hold it.
So then what you need, I think, is some kind of general or unified theory of information—one that ties all information in all relevant systems together and explains the whole ecosystem of information: how various information-containing systems impinge on each other informationally. Does it matter to the information-processing system that is the universe when we, as individual humans, experience events in our awareness that generate information for us?
Rosner: I would guess that in the overall information-processing system that is the universe, a lot of the information-generating events in our awareness have no relevance. At the same time, if there are gigantic civilizations that are millions of years old, that interact with the universe and engineer it for their own long-term survival over billion-year spans, then what those civilizations do might matter.
Can civilizations within the universe affect the information processing of the entire universe? I don’t know. But a unified theory of information—which would likely also be a unified theory of the universe—would clarify that. Does that sound reasonable?
Jacobsen: Yes. So what you’re suggesting is a program of inquiry: How do we… When we talk about the universe as a relational system, the universe “perceives” itself via quantum interactions, and those interactions are relational. Everything in the universe defines itself and everything else through a history of interaction. And then how does that relate to a digital system?
Rosner: All the “it-from-bit” people—Wheeler, Wigner, von Neumann, and others—have been pushing “universe as computer” ideas since the 1960s, and Fredkin and others kept developing them. Naturally, early attempts took the form of: the universe is a computer, and quantum events correspond to zeros and ones.
And by poking at it, you and I think that maybe this isn’t quite right—and also because people have been talking about that for 60 or 70 years now. I don’t see a program that has delivered substantial results. But I’m not fully informed. What do you think?
Jacobsen: My general idea is that you have a framework of emergent properties, and information can be defined as those properties emerging with increasing distinctness. But that begins to replicate the digital infrastructure we see in modern computers, whether stacked processors or two-dimensional ones. The emergent property is still information—it’s just that the definition of that information is incomplete.
So there has to be a way in which you can define parts of the universe relationally as emergent, while including a variable for the fuzziness of that information as things become more distinct. The degree of fuzziness should decrease as the scale increases and as more properties become well-defined.
Rosner: That matches what we know from physics: the wavelengths associated with matter at macroscopic scales are incredibly small, because there is an enormous number of particles—on the order of 10⁸⁰ to around 10⁸⁵ particles in the observable universe, all interacting with each other.
So things are tightly defined, so the fuzziness is at a very microscopic scale. There is another thing, which is that the universe is entangled with itself. Everything in the universe is a quantum system. It is a quantum-entangled entity. Whether you can call it a quantum computer, I guess, though it does not look like our primitive quantum computers, because primitive quantum computers are still doing manipulations of bits. There are still zeros and ones; the processing is more powerful because it is massively parallel and entangled.
It is not to say that the universe does the same type of information processing. It is still hard to find the zeros and ones in what the universe is doing—if there are zeros and ones at all. There are distinct quantum events. When a quantum event happens, you can characterize it with exact numbers, even though the particles involved are fuzzy. You can say: this event occurred, and the universe at a later point in time reflects these distinct and precise quantum events having happened. Though again, the precision might be limited, you can arrange the universe by doing experiments so you can know with a high degree of certainty that a quantum event has happened.
You never get 100 percent certainty, but a quantum event that you think happened has an exact mathematical description—a mathematical “name.” This event happened, and this is precisely what happened if this event happened, and we can know that the event happened with a very high degree of certainty, but not 100 percent. Does all that make sense?
Jacobsen: So there is going to be an overarching property of how leaky a particular event is, whether it is an object, a world line, or a large section of the universe, depending on size. So it is a sliding scale of how defined things are. That would be one variable included in that. So the relational degrees of freedom—the variable—would probably be defined in a very simple way, a mathematical symbol representing the degrees of freedom for this particular event and world line of the universe.
Rosner: For people who do not know a lot of quantum mechanics, the first example you learn is the particle in a well, or a box. Here is a particle. It is fuzzy. It is in a box—a place it cannot get out of because there is a potential barrier. In that description, the particle is fuzzy, and there is a high probability it is here, and a lower probability it exists as a cloud, a probability cloud, that is generally located here. The center of that cloud is here, but the particle can be any place within the cloud with a probability at each point, and the cloud extends to infinity. So you get quantum tunneling.
Say you have a particle in a box—an electron. The probability that the electron is an inch away from the center of the cloud might be one in 10²⁰. But that is not zero. So if you had 10²⁰ electrons in boxes, one of them would appear outside the box because of probability. That is what leakiness is—quantum leakiness is that you cannot pin everything down precisely, including quantum events. In a technical sense, we are leaking out to the edge of the universe all the time.
But the universe, through its interactions, holds itself together. This is not the Big Bang expansion, but imagine the universe flying apart all the time—if all the particles were expanding. If everything is expanding at the same rate and the distances are all scaling uniformly, then the universe cannot perceive that, and it is meaningless. It is like the difference between a photograph and an enlargement of a photograph. If it is the same photograph, it does not matter how much you enlarge it, because the relations among the things in the photograph remain the same. It is only when you get differential changes—when the relationships change—that anything becomes perceptible.
So the universe manages, regardless of what overall frame you put on it, to define itself and provide its own frame. Even though mathematical frames might make it convenient to think of the universe as something flying apart, if everything is flying apart to the same extent and none of the relationships among the elements change, then it becomes meaningless—except as a mathematical convenience to talk about the size of the frame changing, as long as everything within the frame stays the same.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Vocal.Media
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/18
Dr. Nasser Yousefi and Baran Yousefi are the creators of the Peace School, a Canadian lab school dedicated to humanistic, child-centred education. Drawing on backgrounds in psychology, pedagogy, and community work, they design environments where children explore relationships, values, and critical thinking rather than merely perform for grades or rankings. Their work challenges behaviourist, test-driven schooling by foregrounding emotional intelligence, democratic participation, and love as core educational principles. Through collaborations with universities, community partners, and international scholars, they aim to build a global network of progressive educators committed to inclusive, peace-oriented learning for children and families worldwide today and tomorrow.
In this year-end conversation, Scott Douglas Jacobsen speaks with Nasser and Baran about the Peace School’s 2025 developments. They describe expanding enrollment, launching baby-and-parent programs, and building partnerships with libraries, community centres, and universities. A public “call” has attracted notable supporters, including philosophers and inclusive-education scholars, strengthening the school’s reputation as a humanistic lab school. The Yousefis critique behaviourist, test-focused education and argue that competition, rankings, and narrow literacy-math priorities undermine peace, empathy, and democracy. They envision schools grounded in love, emotional intelligence, and educational diversity, where all children develop holistically within caring, democratic, global communities everywhere.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Here we are once again for our year-end review with Nasser and Baran, to talk about the Peace School. For 2025, what is the latest update for the Peace School?
Dr. Nasser Yousefi and Baran Yousefi: We had more students, first of all. We have started adding the child-care program. We are offering baby-and-mommy or baby-and-daddy workshops. We are also connecting with community-based groups, including the library and community centers. We have been connecting with academic institutions, including universities, as well as organizations that focus on subjects such as nutrition, sports, music, and gardening. These specialized organizations have been drawn to the school and are very interested.
We also had interviews with local newspapers in Newmarket. We are working on the philosophy academically while also connecting with the community. But we still have a long way to go in reaching people in local communities because we do not yet know how to get them effectively or how to market the school.
Developing and sharing the call—the document—helped us become more recognized by specialized individuals. Many of them have reached out. They want to learn more about the school and explore how we can collaborate in different ways. These are people we previously only read about in books. They are supporting the school and the idea behind it, and they want their names on the list. It is encouraging because many people now recognize that education needs to change so we can better support children, and that we need to bring more living values and humanist values into education.
One of those people is Dr. Christopher DiCarlo, a Canadian philosopher, educator, and author known for his work on critical thinking. After he read the document—the call—he reached out himself and asked to have his name on the list. Another is Dr. Ferris, a British philosopher with anarchist leanings who advocates for distributing power in education so that no single actor holds sole authority. She is also on the list. There is also Dr. Frank J. Müller from Germany, a leading figure in inclusive education at the University of Bremen, and Richard Fransham.
I can take the names of those documents. We also want to mention Bria Bloom, Aron Borger, Je’anna Clements, Kenneth Danford, Georga Dowling, Theresa Dunn, Jackie Eldridge, Hannah Fisher, Henning Graner, Gabriel Groiss, Vida Heidari, Iman Ibrahim, Shalie Jelenic, Terence Lovat, Arash Mansouri, Earl Albert Mentor, Charlie Moreno-Romero, Alex O’Neill, Simon Parcher, Nick Quartey, Chap Rosoff, Judy Sebba, Jo Symes, and Yuko Uesugi.
Jacobsen: So you have built a list of reputable figures doing important work in their specific disciplines, industries, or areas of specialization. How do you leverage that as a lab school to attract more students, improve education, and build an international network around humanistic education so it becomes a household name, like Montessori or others?
Yousefis: We can rely on their help and support and draw on their knowledge, expertise, and resources within the principles and vision—but not in the practical promotion of the school.
Jacobsen: So you are not going to see someone like Chris DiCarlo or Lloyd Robertson serving as a substitute teacher.
Yousefis: No. Or as people who bring more students.
Jacobsen: Sure. Can you leverage them for advising, networking, and webinars?
Yousefis: Yes, or for helping us become more nationally or internationally recognized.
Jacobsen: So it is reputational leverage.
Yousefis: Yes. Most of them are professors at universities or academic professionals. They can classify our documents and resources and share them in educational environments. They can help us become more recognized among students in education programs. They can help spread the idea of the school among students, professors, and academic communities.
We also had some conservative individuals who, after reading the document, were concerned and hesitant to support it. They see it as the opposite of the behaviourist approach— the complete opposite. But we are trying to explain that it is not the opposite; it is another approach. We are not saying the behaviourist approach should not exist or that this is the best one. We are saying the behaviourist method works for some, and this one can work for others.
We want to help communities discuss educational diversity beyond the mainstream, classical approach. Families should be able to decide where to send their children. Having diversity in the educational system is, in a sense, a democratic way of thinking. You cannot call a country democratic if there is only one type of school or one method. One of the main principles of democratic ideology is inclusivity and diversity.
There are many schools with different names, but they only differ in name; they still promote the same approach. Montessori schools are great, but they are not fundamentally different from behaviourist schools. In the end, most schools encourage competition and comparison among children, and this mindset begins early— the mentality of competition, comparison, and ultimately conflict.
When you teach children and encourage them to compete with other students, they eventually internalize competition as a worldview. As they grow up, that mindset can lead them into forms of conflict. Schools that promote rewards—raising one student higher because they perform better on tests—can create patterns where those children later seek rewards in ways that may not always be ethical.
Some education specialists even say we should not teach children to think about others’ well-being. They argue that children should focus solely on themselves and on their own success. They claim that thinking about others comes from sociological ideologies.
But thinking about others—their needs, how we can support them—is part of being human.
Jacobsen: There is an African concept, Ubuntu: “I am because you are.”
I follow what you are saying. If you build competition on comparisons and classroom rankings, children eventually graduate with the mindset they formed when their brains were most malleable. As adults, they continue comparing themselves socioeconomically and otherwise. It creates a vertical mindset.
They enter a kind of zero-sum competition in society, shaped by early comparisons and competitive conditioning. And that competition mindset—when people collide in that way—does not create peace; it creates conflict.
You do not only mean physical war—Kalashnikovs and drones. You mean conflict, zero-sum thinking, and limited resources. And, as you point out, it begins in the educational system. It is very subtle.
Yousefis: When he was researching education departments in Canadian universities, 18 out of 20 professors specialized in literacy, mathematics, or science. No professors or researchers were working on progressive education in any meaningful way.
Jacobsen: That matches international priorities around PISA testing—reading, writing, arithmetic. And this is considered education internationally.
Yousefis: No one was teaching about diversity within education. Or emotional intelligence. Or holistic development. But education is not only reading, writing, math, and science. This ideology deceived or misled families.
Jacobsen: If it is built into the system, much of it can operate unconsciously.
Yousefis: A family does not know it. They do not know. They rely on specialists, who end up misleading them. They show them the wrong path, and they limit children and students. And with the technology we have now, including AI, it is incorrect to restrict students to the boundaries that teachers decide.
Limiting them to set amounts of information is not enough. We need to help children gain experience, meet people, and form friendships. It is strange to him that, even today, schools in Canada are afraid to talk about love. They teach sex education, but they do not teach love. He does not understand it. You have to teach love first.
The rest can be taught at appropriate times as needed. And this is not just in Canada; it is the same in Europe and in many Asian countries. People say that if children learn about love, they will become spoiled. He believes the opposite: that if they learn about love, they will become softer and kinder.
A student who learns about love will learn to love people, nature, animals—everything. Children will learn that others have come to love the world as well. When someone loves something, they naturally seek information about it. If a child loves something, they will go and learn about it. He cannot say this everywhere because he will be judged. Some people ask why we should teach love, claiming it is not necessary.
But one day, schools around the world will become places where love is the foundation of teaching. Schools will become loving places for students. This future is not close, but eventually it will come.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Nasser and Baran.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Vocal.Media
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/09
The war in Sudan, between the Sudanese Armed Forces and Rapid Support Forces, is among the world’s largest conflicts, causing over 150,000 deaths and displacing more than 14 million. Famine was declared in El Fasher and Kadugli in November 2025. Women and girls face gendered harms: UN Women estimates 11 million are food insecure and 73.7% lack minimum dietary diversity. Siege conditions in Darfur and Kordofan intensify malnutrition; women eat last or not at all. Foraging exposes them to abduction and sexual violence. With maternity care collapsing, women-led groups deliver aid. UN Women urges a ceasefire, safe corridors, and funding.
The war in Sudan is considered one of the largest conflicts in the world today. The fighting is between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces. There have been more than 150,000 deaths. It is considered the largest displacement and humanitarian crisis in the world with over 14,000,000 people fleeing their homes.
There has been extreme hunger outbreaks. Disease has been spreading. Human rights violations are significant. There are allegations of war crimes, even genocide. Women and girls become subject to gendered types of negative trends during conflict. One of the significant ones deals with access to food and so nutrition.
UN Women spoke to the gender dimensions of food insecurity in Sudan. They reported being a woman in Sudan is a strong predictor of hunger status in Sudan. UN Women reports approximately 11 million girls and women are acutely food insecure. A famine has been formally declared by the IPC in El Fasher and Kadugli as of November 2025.
73.7% of women do not meet the minimum dietary diversity. This means extremely poor diets and a risk of higher malnutrition. With intense fighting and siege conditions in El Fasher, the severe food insecurity in Darfur are noted, as well as Kordofan.
Adolescent girls and female-headed households are disproportionately harmed from malnutrition and food insecure circumstances. In crisis situations, girls and women tend to eat the least and eat last. In Sudan, many may not be eating at all. Many mothers will skip meals so the children can eat, and the adolescent girls can receive the smallest portions of food (when food is available). Therefore, famine conditions are highly life-stage dependent and gendered.
Women and girls will forage in besieged or remote areas of conflict. Unfortunately, this puts them at risk to bad actors, including being subject to abduction and sexual and gender-based violence.
Reports from El Fasher report bombardment, displacement, rape, and starvation. Civilian medical and communal infrastructure can collapse during conflict. Maternity care has declined. The last maternity hospital has been destroyed and looted. Some pregnant women allegedly give birth in the streets. There are minimal mental-health or psychosocial services available.
Many women-led organizations are a core base of humanitarian responsiveness. UN Women maintains a presence in Sudan. They work with local and women-led partners. They deliver lifesaving support. They sustain essential services. They advance the leadership of women.
UN Women has called for a halt to all violence and proposed a humanitarian ceasefire. They want to guarantee safe corridors for girls, women, and all civilians. In food assistance, given the aforementioned, they prioritize women and female-headed households.
They argue for the protection of girls and women based on upholding international human rights and humanitarian law. They urge donors to recognize and fund partners, particularly women-led organizations.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Vocal.Media
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/09
Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner probe the future of compute: CPUs for serial work, GPUs for parallelism, and unstable quantum processors, tied together by Jacobsen’s “contextual compute,” which routes tasks to the right engine in real time. They ask about the smallest actionable unit of calculation; Rosner argues it is the electron, with photons a plausible successor. Moore’s Law lingers as an efficiency race, while quantum offers leaps. The pair then flip to physics: photons lose energy to redshift yet experience zero time, suggesting photons are events and information couriers. A playful “reverse Pokémon” tag ends a curious exchange.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Anyway, all right—so, computing. Think about how we process information. CPUs handle linear processing—you can increase their power, but it becomes inefficient. GPUs use parallel processing, and now we’re experimenting with 3D stacking, though that introduces heat management problems requiring massive cooling systems. On top of that, quantum processors—QPU systems—are still highly unstable. There’s even a guy who patented a design to combine all three—CPU, GPU, and QPU—on one chip. I talked to him about contextual compute, the idea of optimizing which processor handles which task in real time. So in that context, what’s the smallest unit that can actually perform a calculation? Like, in a CPU, GPU, or QPU, what’s the physical limit—the minimum distance or event before quantum fuzziness disrupts the computation?
Rick Rosner: Essentially, the sub-electron scale—where quantum uncertainty prevents a stable signal. You can scale things down and experiment with photons, but everyone’s still trying to keep Moore’s Law alive—making transistors smaller and reducing power consumption per operation. A “flip” or “flop” basically refers to the energy cost of changing a bit from zero to one.
In a conventional circuit, your smallest functional unit for changing a state—a flip—is an electron. You send an electron down a wire; it flips a gate. That’s the minimal requirement—you need enough physical space and energy to accommodate a single electron.
But you can theoretically go smaller by using photons instead of electrons. I’m not sure how far that technology has developed yet, or if we’ve even reached the point where we need to. Quantum computing already pushes several generations beyond Moore’s Law, since it allows massive parallel computation. Instead of running one set of calculations at a time, you can process an enormous number of quantum states simultaneously—but only in certain contexts where superposition and entanglement can be applied effectively.
There’s been speculation about computing with even smaller subatomic particles, but that’s likely either misremembered or speculative nonsense. For now, the smallest practical change agent in computation is probably still the electron, maybe with photons as a future alternative.
Jacobsen: That’s probably something to dig deeper into—maybe later, with a good literature search. Before that, photons themselves are interesting. They travel at the speed of light and lose energy due to the curvature of spacetime—cosmological redshift. But from the photon’s own perspective, if it had one, it doesn’t experience time at all. How do we reconcile that? From our viewpoint, photons age and lose energy; from theirs, no time passes.
Rosner: That’s a decent question. A photon emitted from one point and absorbed at another experiences no passage of time—it’s instantaneous from its “point of view.” So a photon traveling across a galaxy is, in a sense, in both places at once: the emission and the absorption occur simultaneously in its own frame.
From the photon’s frame—if such a frame meaningfully exists—it doesn’t experience duration. Its proper time is zero. That implies photons don’t exist as persistent entities the way particles with mass do; they are events, not enduring things.
So they’re fundamentally different—information propagators that don’t experience time themselves but allow the rest of the universe to experience change. Tacit carriers of information, bridging what we perceive as the flow of time.
The philosophical idea of photons probably has to wait for a better understanding of how information itself functions in the universe. For a while, I thought—maybe still think—that when you emit a photon, it’s like a strain in the electromagnetic field, a kind of localized stress that either triggers an event at every point along its trajectory or doesn’t. I’ve looked at photons as consistency checkers: if a photon can travel indefinitely without being absorbed, that suggests the information it carries is fully compatible with the structure of the universe it’s traversing.
So when a photon loses energy to redshift but keeps going, it’s essentially the universe agreeing, “Yes, this information fits.” But if the stress that produced the photon causes a capture event—if the photon gets absorbed—that might mean the information it carries isn’t consistent with the local state of the universe at that point. Maybe that’s nonsense, maybe it’s metaphysical speculation, but it’s an interesting thought experiment.
So, in a sense, a photon that travels forever without being absorbed is the universe tacitly approving the information it represents. The absence of capture is a kind of ongoing confirmation—a tacit generation of information. Every photon that keeps moving without interaction for billions of years is, in effect, a “non-event” that still encodes affirmation of universal consistency.
Jacobsen: So the universe is basically Pokémon.
Rosner: Pokémon?
Jacobsen: Yeah—“gotta catch ’em all.”
Rosner: Actually, it’s reverse Pokémon: to win, you have to not catch them all.
Jacobsen: Pika-pi! Oh god.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Vocal.Media
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/21
Irina Tsukerman is a human rights and national security attorney based in New York and Connecticut. She earned her Bachelor of Arts in National and Intercultural Studies and Middle East Studies from Fordham University in 2006, followed by a Juris Doctor from Fordham University School of Law in 2009. She operates a boutique national security law practice. She serves as President of Scarab Rising, Inc., a media and security strategic advisory firm. Additionally, she is the Editor-in-Chief of The Washington Outsider, which focuses on foreign policy, geopolitics, security, and human rights. She is actively involved in several professional organizations, including the American Bar Association’s Energy, Environment, and Science and Technology Sections, where she serves as Program Vice Chair in the Oil and Gas Committee. She is also a member of the New York City Bar Association. She serves on the Middle East and North Africa Affairs Committee and affiliates with the Foreign and Comparative Law Committee.
In this interview with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Tsukerman discuss the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s murder, the conservative movement’s internal divisions, and the broader implications for American politics. Tsukerman examines the role of figures like Nick Fuentes, Tucker Carlson, and Turning Point USA, highlighting tensions between traditional conservatives and rising populist factions. The discussion expands to the Tyler James Robinson case, misinformation, and media responsibility. Tsukerman questions the lack of motive analysis, the failure to pursue a mental health defense, and the surprising quiet from both prosecution and defense.
Interview conducted on November 7, 2025, in the afternoon Pacific Time.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Any updates on the Charlie Kirk case?
Irina Tsukerman: There is not much new in terms of legal proceedings or political impact. Much of the attention has shifted away from the murder and toward the legacy-planning stage. That appears to be slipping away from Croc’s original vision and moving into territory dominated by more aggressively populist, neo-con mega-influencers.
We are seeing newer online figures trying to turn controversy into leadership claims. This looks like an attempt to cement a legacy and position as a 2028 front-runner. If that does not work, a platform that sustains ongoing political activity—branding oneself as a leader of a national movement—would serve as a fallback.
It is clear that Erika Kirk, while trying to preserve what she sees as the spirit of Charlie Kirk’s legacy, is not necessarily the sole decision-maker. Donors and allied personalities who supported the organization financially are publicly contesting their influence over its direction.
It is also clear that, despite uproar over Tucker Carlson’s interview with Nick Fuentes, a white nationalist and leader of the Groyper movement, key figures on the populist right continue to appear on lineups and share stages. The Heritage Foundation’s internal backlash after its president Kevin Roberts initially defended Carlson’s interview, followed by his apology, shows division over platforming Fuentes.
I am not convinced the critics inside these institutions will prevail quickly. A split seems likely. Turning Point USA (TPUSA) has historically clashed with Fuentes and the Groypers—most visibly during the 2019 “Groyper War,” when Fuentes’s followers disrupted TPUSA events and Donald Trump Jr.’s UCLA book tour. While “Tucker-aligned” personalities are prominent across the movement, TPUSA’s record suggests friction rather than alignment with Fuentes’s faction.
The broader fight is less about preserving older institutions than about whether new ones built on older principles have a future—or whether they will be captured by Fuentes or “Fuentes-lite” younger, angrier activists.
Jacobsen: Has Fuentes met Trump? Has Groyper met Groper?
Tsukerman: Yes. Nick Fuentes met Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago during a dinner with Ye (Kanye West) in November 2022, confirmed by multiple outlets.
Trump later claimed that Kanye brought an unknown guest he had never heard of—which seems doubtful, because by then Fuentes already had a scandalous reputation involving politicians who had been criticized or distanced after attending his rallies and events. I’m skeptical that Trump had no idea who he was.
Jacobsen: One of the key updates concerns the Tyler James Robinson case. Many media outlets avoid naming killers, which is generally appropriate and responsible, especially in coverage of school or mass shootings. Research shows adolescents—particularly males around age 17—are the most likely to commit copycat acts. In U.S. data, these perpetrators are often classified as white males, with very few, if any, identified as transgender.
The copycat effect adds further complexity, since similar data patterns emerge repeatedly. Regardless, the suspect is in custody without bail, charged with aggravated murder and related counts. Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty. The preliminary hearing was postponed to January 16, 2026, with arraignment set for January 30. Judge Johnny Graff allowed the defendant to appear in civilian clothing and imposed limited camera access given the “extraordinary” detention circumstances. A 14-outlet coalition led by the Salt Lake Tribune has petitioned to preserve access and be notified of any closure motions.
The judge has imposed additional limits. The charges include obstruction, witness tampering, a “presence of a child” enhancement, and a “victim target” enhancement. The defense cites “voluminous discovery.” Authorities may increase security, as the FBI has reported AI-boosted false claims circulating after the killing. This has created serious problems not only for professional media but also for social media, where misinformation spreads fastest.
As for Erika Kirk, I’ll leave her part of the commentary aside for now. Any further thoughts?
Tsukerman: What stands out is how quickly conservative activist circles that initially expressed grief after Charlie Kirk’s death have lost interest in the legal process. Within two weeks, his name virtually disappeared from search trends. Despite all the speculation about motive, no one has addressed the fundamental question: why did he do it?
There’s been endless projection about his motives, but no clear effort to establish them. Perhaps his lawyer barred him from discussing the issue, which would be legitimate, but even so, no one seems to have tried. Many assume the motive was political—some kind of radical leftist reaction—rather than anything else. It also appears he acted alone, without a network of associates. Yet investigators and online commentators have chased conspiratorial leads instead of examining the real ecosystem in which he operated—his social-media circles, for instance. Was he encouraged or provoked by troll groups?
There has been discussion of his activity on Discord. He allegedly bragged there about committing the act, but no one knows whom he was speaking to or how they reacted. Did anyone report it to police? Did they celebrate it? Did they dismiss him or think he was bluffing? That’s surprising. There is as much a role for serious media investigation here as for law enforcement. I’m surprised journalists aren’t digging into this, given the potential for understanding a complex and disturbing crime.
One early speculation was an attempt to revive the “trans shooter” narrative—the idea that the partner was transgender and Tyler took the blame—ignoring clear evidence, including a close DNA match. It’s conspiratorial nonsense.
I also wonder whether there will be a mental health evaluation at some point, because so far neither his family nor he himself has requested one. He isn’t claiming mental illness, even though that would be an obvious defense in a potential death penalty case. I’m curious about that, since the defense doesn’t seem particularly aggressive.
For such a high-profile case, both the prosecution and defense are taking a surprisingly low-profile approach, while third-party interests seem to be managing the public narrative.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): bruceschneier.com
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/25
Rewiring Democracy: How AI Will Transform Our Politics, Government, and Citizenship is Bruce Schneier and Nathan E. Sanders’ field guide to governing in the algorithmic age. Drawing on real projects and policy debates, it maps how AI is already reshaping lawmaking, regulation, courts, and civic participation—and shows how to bend the tech toward equity, transparency, and public accountability. Rather than dystopian panic or hype, the authors offer a pragmatic roadmap: reform and regulate AI, resist harmful deployments, responsibly use AI to improve services, and renovate democratic institutions so power is distributed, not concentrated. Publication: MIT Press, October 21, 2025, globally.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: You argue AI magnifies power. Which concrete policy levers best ensure diffusion?
Nathan E. Sanders: AI is fundamentally a power magnifying technology, It takes the command of one person and executes on it with greater speed, scale, scope, and sophistication that any one human could wield on their own. Both powerful and, relatively speaking, powerless people can benefit from this.
But recognize that the powerful have many advantages to help them get the most magnification. Diffusion is harder. Here in Massachusetts, many of my colleagues are experimenting with using AI to help groups reach consensus, for example to agree on policy proposals. In this example, people get to use AI to help express themselves. In the United Arab Emirates, the ruler of Dubai has promised to use AI to create a “comprehensive legislative plan” spanning local and federal law and updated more frequently than traditional lawmaking. In this example, a powerful person gets to use AI to dictate the rules of a society. No matter how good the next version of ChatGPT may be, I can’t use it to do that.
Jacobsen: What happens if concentration happens across citizens and institutions?
Bruce Schneier: We already know the answer, because we’ve seen it happen: in big tech in general and with social media in particular. The powerful get more powerful, and then use that power to enact legislative changes that further protect that power.
The concentration of wealth and power is bigger than AI, of course. It’s bigger than technology. But it’s exacerbated by technologies like AI. Our task as a democracy is to ensure that technologies broadly distribute power amongst the many rather than concentrate it among the few.
We return to this problem again and again in our book. We outline myriad ways that AI today is concentrating power. We lay out a four-part plan of action: resist inappropriate uses of AI, seek our responsible uses of AI in governance, reform the ecosystem of AI, and renovate our democracy to prepare it for AI. The last one feels most urgent right now. We need to make systemic changes to our system—most of which will not be specific to AI—that are responsive to the impending risks the new technology brings.
Jacobsen: How should legislatures draft AI-era statutes?
Sanders: For Congress, a good start would be to finally pass comprehensive data privacy legislation. AI is providing many tech companies with new capabilities and incentives to abuse consumer trust and monetize surveillance of their behaviors, habits, and interests. The best AI assistants will be the ones that know the most about their users, but their operators will also pose the greatest risks to consumer privacy. Other jurisdictions, like Europe, have effectively made a wide range of exploitative business models infeasible by giving consumers rights to withhold consent, delete their data, and more.
In Rewiring Democracy, we also think about how the capabilities of AI will change the lawmaking process and law itself. Optimistically, AI can give legislators with limited resources help in drafting bills with fewer strings attached than, say, a lobbyist or an advocacy organization’s model legislation. The first law anywhere known to have been written by AI arose from Porto Alegre, Brazil, when a city councillor simply needed some help writing a bill about water utility infrastructure and turned to ChatGPT.
In the future, legislators might choose not just to use an AI model to draft the text of a bill, but might actually choose to designate an AI model as the form of their legislation. Traditional, textual legislation suffers from ambiguity and inflexibility when it is interpreted decades later. An AI model could clarify its intent with unlimited precision and express an interpretation of a rule in response to any future special case or scenario.
Jacobsen: What might ossify law or chill innovation?
Schneier: Be careful with the phrase “chill innovation.” It’s a scary pair of words that the powerful use to shut down any talk of regulation. Do health codes chill innovation in restaurants? They don’t, and in any case maybe we don’t want restaurants whose practices make people sick.
AI is a technology that has implications throughout society. It will affect how we interact with each other. It will affect employment and the nature of labor. It will affect national security and the global economy. It will, as we talk about extensively in our book, affect democracy.
Letting a technology develop without any regulation only makes sense when the cost of getting it wrong is small. When the cost of getting it wrong will kill someone—think automobiles, or airplanes, or food service—we tend to regulate. Computers have long been in the former category; it was okay to let companies experiment unfettered because it didn’t really matter. Now, AIs are driving cars, transcribing doctor’s notes, and making life and death decisions about people’s insurance benefits.
Smart regulation doesn’t chill innovation. It actually incents innovation by defining pro-social requirements that companies have to meet. If we want AI to be unbiased, or secure, or safe enough for high-risk applications, we need to create those regulatory requirements that the market can innovate to meet.
Jacobsen: What would a “public AI” look like in practice? Things like auditing, ownership, procurement standards, and training data governance?
Sanders: We call for the development of Public AI as an alternative to the current, corporate-dominated ecosystem of AI today. Corporate AI is built to serve one interest: short-term profit. That means it will always operate from a trust deficit, where the informed consumer knows that any AI model they use is ultimately built to serve someone else, not them. A public AI model—one built by a government agency, as a public good, under public control, with public oversight—would be subject to fundamentally different incentives. It could be optimized not to turn a profit, but to win public approval.
There are many visions for how to realize public AI. Indeed, several countries, including Singapore and Switzerland, have published fully open source (in data, code, and model weights) AI models built by their governments.
Our preferred version of Public AI is a public option model. Think of it like the public option for healthcare. It doesn’t replace or invalidate the work of private companies to build AI models, or offer health insurance. Instead, it offers a competitive baseline: a minimum standard that private AI provider, or insurers, need to meet or exceed to be successful. We would not be looking to government to be the leader of the pack on innovation and performance. The public option could instead set a higher bar on other factors: being responsive to consumer input and feedback, engendering trust by disclosing its training data sources and procedures, and guaranteeing long term and universal access at a reasonable price.
Jacobsen: How do we harness AI for research and drafting while preventing bias and confidentiality breaches?
Schneier: Let’s start with bias. First, it’s not clear that an unbiased AI is even possible, just as an unbiased human isn’t possible. And second, there are some biases we might want: a bias for fairness, or kindness, or honesty. The flip side of a bias is a value. We all want AIs to have values, even though we are never going to agree on which values we want AIs to have.
We envision a world be populated with multiple AIs with different biases and values, and that people will choose. If you are a judge who is using AI to help write opinions, or a candidate who is using AI to help write speeches, you will choose an AI that has the same biases and values as you do—just as you would choose human assistants who mirror your biases and values. In those instances, a biased AI is a feature, at least to that user.
In situations where AI is being used as a neutral party—adjudicating a dispute, determining eligibility for a government service—we’re going to want to remove illegal biases and implant societal values. That’s technically hard, and many researchers and developers are trying to solve those problems right now.
Security is even harder. AIs are computer programs running on networked computers, and we cannot absolutely prevent confidentiality breaches. Additionally, there are all the security problems inherent in modern machine-learning AI systems. And aside from confidentiality, we’re worried about integrity: has the AI system been manipulated in any way, and can you trust its output? Right now we can’t.
We don’t know how to solve AI security with current technology. Any AI that is working in an adversarial environment—and by this I mean that it may encounter untrusted training data or input—is vulnerable to prompt injection attacks. It’s an existential problem that, near as we can tell, most people developing these technologies are just pretending isn’t there.
Jacobsen: Where is the ethical line between personalized civic education and manipulative micro-targeting in campaigns?
Sanders: This line was always blurry, for better and for worse. Generations ago, politicians went on whistlestop tours through communities, stopping long enough to speak from the back of a train car before moving on in an attempt to get face to face with as many voters as possible. Some technologies made campaigning and even less personal—radio and TV required candidates to broadcast the same message to everyone. Now, AI makes it possible to deliver individualized messages to every voter and to answer any questions they pose in personalized detail, any time of day.
Agentic AI frameworks make it possible to abstract the voter, too, from this conversation. In the near future, my AI assistant might reach out to every candidate’s AI to ask a series of questions and then tell me how it thinks I should vote.
We generally see these kinds of assistive capabilities as positive. They increase the information bandwidth of our democratic information systems. They make it easier for me to learn about how my views line up with the options on the ballot, and make it easier for candidates to hear from thousands or millions of voters.
But there are real risks, too. If we outsource our individual decision making to an AI proxy, there is a slippery slope to outsourcing democracy itself to the machines. And if we trust a candidate’s avatar to represent their policy positions, we give candidates yet more plausible deniability for their statement and yet another vector for demagoguing.
Jacobsen: Internationally, what cooperative norms will halt AI-fuelled “authoritarian tech stack” from exporting illiberalism?
Schneier: We’re not going to solve this with norms. The problem with relying on things people voluntarily agree to is that not everyone will agree to them. Right now, there’s too much profit—both economic and political—to be made from violating any norm we might suggest. It’s a race to the bottom, as both corporations and countries use AI technology for their own advantage. This is why in our book, we constantly return to either things people can do on their own, and things people can do collectively through government.
Like any technology, AI isn’t inherently good or bad. Like every technology, people can use it to good and bad ends. We can use AI to make democracy more effective and responsive to the people, or we can use it to foster authoritarianism. That’s our choice. We cannot steer how technology works—that’s a matter of science and engineering—but we can steer how we implement and deploy it. That was really our goal in Rewiring Democracy.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Christina Laschenko and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Anglican Link
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/12/03
Christina Laschenko is churchwarden of Christ Church Kyiv, the Anglican chaplaincy of the Church of England’s Diocese in Europe, which worships at St Catherine’s German Lutheran Church on Luteranska Street. A Kyiv native and professional interpreter, she has helped steward a dispersed congregation through Russia’s full-scale war, coordinating prayer and pastoral care online and in person. Laschenko has authored reflections and prayers for the diocese, chronicling resilience amid air raids and displacement, as Christ Church faithfully continues English-language services.
In this conversation, Scott Douglas Jacobsen speaks with Laschenko to discuss resilience in faith, the challenges of operating without a resident chaplain, and the vital support from the Diocese and Rev. Kasta Dip. Laschenko reflects on physical, mental, and spiritual vulnerability—and how collective prayer and steadfast fellowship sustain the Anglican community in wartime Ukraine.
Interview conducted November 12, 2025.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: One of my first field visits to Ukraine was an UNESCO heritage site, the Transfiguration Cathedral in Odesa (Ukrainian: Спасо-Преображенський собор), in 2023 with Romanian humanist, former Romanian MP, former President of their Green Party, and current freelance war correspondent for Newsweek Romania, Remus Cernea. The Russian Federation under the Kremlin and President Putin have been bombing religious holy sites, even UNESCO Heritage holy sites. This complicates the sense of vulnerability for religious leaders, institutions, and communities. What has sustaining worship and pastoral care looked like for Christ Church Kyiv since February 2022, even 2014?
Christina Laschenko: In terms of physical vulnerability, we all are in the same position as the rest of Kyiv’s and Ukraine’s residents. Drones and missiles, both cruise and ballistic, hit all the regions of Ukraine. And we all realize that a ballistic missile can come any moment and hit you wherever you are: in church, at school, in a theatre, in a department store, at your workplace, at home. It takes only 2 minutes between the air raid siren and the arrival of a ballistic missile which is targeting your neighborhood. The only escape could be underground train service (the city metro) or proper deep bunker if you happen to be there in the moment of the attack.
Purposeful 4-year attacks on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure had resulted in another type of physical vulnerability: scarce heating in cold season and regular or emergency electricity outages. We always keep a stock of candles in a vestry cupboard and make sure our smartphones and powerbanks are charged to make readings possible during the service.
Living for almost 4 years in physical vulnerability results in a consequential ‘mental vulnerability’. Regular night air raids make you fear sleeping at night. Insomnia has become a totally spread problem for Ukrainians of all agea and in all regions. In Kyiv many people go to sleep on the platforms in metro stations. But not everybody can sleep on the floor among a hundred people and spend 6-7 hours without a toilet. This can be a solution for 3-4 nights but not for 3-4 years.
But miraculously those circumstances do not result in spiritual vulnerability. On the contrary, the more people suffer from war the more resistant they are towards the enemy’s pressure. Of course, we are all exhausted. But coming together to a church after sleepless nights, singing together, praying together and meditating on the God’s Word as well as having traditional tea afterwards – all that revives our body, mind and spirit in the most unexpected and powerful way.
Then there is such thing as operational vulnerability. We have been worshiping without a permanent chaplain since 2008. That coincided with no-NATO decision for Ukraine and pushing it out to the buffer zone of Russia’s influence. Many expat missions, businesses and organizations quit Ukraine by 2014, and our chaplaincy membership had declined considerably. Since 2008 and till 2022 we enjoyed regular visits of locums during Advent-Christmastide and Lent-Eastertide seasons. We are hugely thankful to all those chaplains who served faithfully and supported us spiritually during all those years. Here I would like to mention names and spouses of those who came twice and more times: Fr.Stuart and Jenny Robertson, Fr.John and Wendy Hall, Fr.Dennis and Maria Moss, Fr. Alan and Vicky Cole, Fr.David and Susan McKeeman, Rev.Dr.Rosie Dymond, Fr.Chris and Susie Martin.
After beginning of the full-scale invasion, it became clear that chaplains could not come and stay for 4-6 weeks as it was before as they could not get insurance for an extended stay in the war zone. Under those circumstances Archdeacon Leslie Nathanial has come up with an unprecedented solution: a visiting chaplain once a month for the service with the Holy Communion. Between August 2024 and October 2025 Rev. Kasta Dip, a chaplain from Warsaw, has made 12 trips to Kyiv. Each trip takes 18 hours by bus or by train, 3-4 hour stay in Kyiv for the Sunday Eucharist Service, and then16-18-hour trip back to Warsaw. We are very grateful to Fr. Kasta for the long-term and routine sacrifice of his time and comfort.
In addition to the Eucharist services, we have been meeting for the Service of the Word, thus having biweekly services on the 2nd and 4th Sunday of the month. As of now we have between 12 and 18 regular Sunday visitors with huge spikes of attendance (up to 50 people) on special occasions on Remembrance Sunday, Carol Service, Easter Day etc. Expat membership of our congregation is subject to rapid turnover because of the short-term contracts in the war zone. This summer we have seen the third massive ‘exodus’ of expats and now we are in the intermediary period of gaining new members. Ukrainian part of the congregation has been restoring gradually since a shock of February 2022.
Jacobsen: As churchwarden, which decisions have weighed most on your pastoral leadership of the Christ Church Kyiv community?
Laschenko: Good question, thanks for it. It was resuming of the Christ Church Kyiv regular (biweekly) Sunday services in September 2022 that required a lot of faith in God’s provision, hope for the future and most careful practical planning. We were only 6 church members who remained in Kyiv after full scale invasion in Feb2022. We wanted to come back to our traditional Anglican services in English and with our favorite hymns and prayers. In August 2022 I had a lot of doubts and challenges: Would people attend the services that I would lead? For how long would I sustain leading the regular services? Who could help? How would we cover the church premises rent? Who would help with writing the texts for intersessions and sermons? And you know what happened? It appeared that ‘with Christ all things are possible’, and somehow all those challenges were overcome.
Jacobsen: How do you coordinate with St Catherine’s Lutheran hosts and the Diocese in Europe?
Laschenko: We have very good relations with our Lutheran hosts. We have been using the St. Catherine’s church (which is 160 years old) for 25 years now. During some months between May and September 2022 immediately after deoccupation of Kyiv region, we had been joining the Lutheran Service of the Word on Sundays. And now our regular (and minimal) rent payment contributes to the St. Catherine’s charity for IDPs and orphaned kids.
The Diocese is very supportive and cooperative. The Diocese supplied us with locums and supervising chaplain – Rev. Kasta Dip from Warsaw. Bishop Robert visited Kyiv in Dec-2023. Archdeacon Leslie Nathanial visited Kyiv in April 2023. We continuously feel solidarity, support and encouragement. We gladly participate in the Diocesan events: online prayers on special occasions lead by Bishop Robert; Growing in Faith and Celebrating Nicaea courses; online safeguarding courses. The Diocese communications team remains in touch and requests for information with regularity.
Jacobsen: How have the spiritual and practical needs of Anglicans changed since 2022?
Laschenko: I can speak for the Anglicans of our chaplaincy and not for all the Anglicans, of course. The war has redefined the meaning of the Christ’s sacrifice for Christians. When your life is considerably devaluated and you understand that your chances to survive in a long-run are 50% or less and still you decide to stay where you are and continue with what you believe you should do: then you come closer to understanding of the Christ’s choice to serve up to the ultimate sacrifice. You gain new understanding of the Agony in the Garden. That is quite an eye-opening spiritual experience.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/08
Irina Tsukerman is a human rights and national security attorney based in New York and Connecticut. She earned her Bachelor of Arts in National and Intercultural Studies and Middle East Studies from Fordham University in 2006, followed by a Juris Doctor from Fordham University School of Law in 2009. She operates a boutique national security law practice. She serves as President of Scarab Rising, Inc., a media and security strategic advisory firm. Additionally, she is the Editor-in-Chief of The Washington Outsider, which focuses on foreign policy, geopolitics, security, and human rights. She is actively involved in several professional organizations, including the American Bar Association’s Energy, Environment, and Science and Technology Sections, where she serves as Program Vice Chair in the Oil and Gas Committee. She is also a member of the New York City Bar Association. She serves on the Middle East and North Africa Affairs Committee and affiliates with the Foreign and Comparative Law Committee.
In this interview with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Tsukerman discusses the optics of UNGA80 over its outcomes, President Trump’s stated opposition to West Bank annexation, and U.S. arrears that limit UN reform. She contrasts China’s “stability” narrative with repression of Uyghurs and extradition pressure, and notes Nepal and Bangladesh developments reflect influence, not orchestration. On Palestinian statehood recognitions, she argues unconditional moves empower authoritarian actors and should be tied to elections, hostages’ release, demilitarization, and rights commitments. She urges Western leaders to back a Palestinian transitional authority, cautioning that symbolic gestures, sanctions, and information warfare harden factions and prolong conflict.
Interview conducted September 26, 2025.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: We’re here for Everywhere Insiders. Most oversized item: UNGA80. Any thoughts on the state of play? Many statements by significant and influential people, but any thoughts from you?
Irina Tsukerman: The logistical drama—stuck escalator, teleprompter glitch—set the tone more than any policy breakthrough. Both incidents occurred on the opening day of the General Debate on September 23, 2025. On substance: President Trump publicly said he would not allow Israel to annex the West Bank. That was his stated position as of September 26, 2025. Analysts note follow-through is uncertain, and Netanyahu’s coalition had mixed views on annexation. Trump’s UN address ran about 56–57 minutes—not nearly two hours—and focused on migration, climate, and a broad critique of multilateralism.
Regarding UN funding, the United States carries arrears estimated in the billions and has proposed paying far less than its assessed contributions for FY2026—constraints that make it challenging to advance major UN reform initiatives. Member states risk losing their vote if their arrears exceed the dues for the previous two years. China branded itself an “island of stability,” but the record is mixed. There’s no verified evidence that Beijing directs Hamas propaganda on TikTok; what we do know is that there’s an ongoing debate about TikTok’s role in shaping narratives on the Israel–Hamas war.
Regionally, Nepal saw large youth-led protests this month; Beijing publicly called for order, but isn’t orchestrating the unrest. Bangladesh experienced a 2024 mass uprising, leading to Sheikh Hasina’s resignation and the establishment of a caretaker government; since then, Dhaka has edged closer to China on specific projects. That’s influence, not proof of a China-run coup. Bottom line: UNGA80 opened on September 9, 2025, with the General Debate running from September 23 to 27 and 29. The week featured sharp rhetoric, a U.S. pledge against West Bank annexation, big talk on reform but little concrete movement—constrained by U.S. arrears and politics.
Jacobsen: The Uyghurs—that’s barely on the agenda anymore.
Tsukerman: There has also been recent interference with Tibet and other places. China has been trying to extradite fleeing Uyghur activists from different countries with mixed success. It claims to be concerned with national security, but many of these activists are simply critics of China. They have no links to militant activity, not even armed self-defence. Countries complying with China’s extradition demands against peaceful activists are violating asylum obligations under treaties many of them have signed. This is deeply disturbing and undercuts China’s claim that its detention facilities are for re-educating revolutionaries. In reality, the Uyghurs as a whole are being targeted.
Jacobsen: As a side note, I’d like your opinion. We often see hesitation to act against powerful nations with large militaries or those with Security Council vetoes, such as Russia under Putin. Does the same hold, even more so, for the United States or China?
Tsukerman: Definitely for China. We have seen no enforceable action against it. With the United States, it’s not only the veto power. The U.S. has positioned itself as a democracy, and while many disagree with its foreign policies, it has not been accused of genocide on the scale of the Uyghur genocide, which the U.S. officially recognized during Trump’s first term. Since the creation of the UN, the U.S. has not been accused of genocide in that sense. That could change, especially given that Trump has alienated nearly everyone in one way or another. Ironically, he may gain support from Russia and China, since he has given them much of what they want, despite their hostility. It’s unclear whether moves through UN institutions could directly affect the U.S., but American influence is already eroding, with allies joining other blocs or voting against U.S. positions.
Jacobsen: Four countries—Portugal, the U.K., Australia, and Canada—have recently recognized Palestinian statehood, pushing the total number of recognitions into the 150s. These are national positions, not UN actions. In 2012, Palestine received UN observer state status, ranking slightly above the Holy See, and in 2024, it was granted additional privileges. Today, Prime Minister Netanyahu condemned Western countries for embracing Palestinian statehood, accusing them of sending the message that “murdering Jews pays off.” He stated he rejected this recognition “in the harshest terms.” He added that France, Britain, Australia, Canada, and others recognized Palestinian statehood after the horrors of October 7, 2023, which he said were praised by nearly 90% of Palestinians. He called that “a mark of shame.” Strong language and starkly divided views continue to dominate one of the most important international events each year. What are your thoughts so far?
Tuskerman: This is not helping Palestinians, who remain divided and under authoritarian, corrupt governments. Abbas claimed the Palestinian Authority would reform, appointed his successor, and promised elections. Yet there have been no honest elections in about 18 years. With Hamas, the situation is worse. They have killed their opposition and recently executed individuals accused of collaborating with Israel. Whether those accusations were true or not is irrelevant—these could easily have been critics of Hamas targeted under pretenses.
The fact that these organizations claim to represent Palestinians, and that recognition was given unconditionally rather than tied to free and fair elections or transparent, human-rights-abiding governance, is a disservice to Palestinians more than to Israel. Israel will defend itself regardless, and these political gestures do not change that. Real pressure on Israel would require sanctions, economic isolation, or ruptures with allies, not symbolic recognition.
What recognition without conditions does is encourage terrorist organizations to claim legitimacy. If Hamas and others are treated as de facto governments, why should they cooperate with mediators like Tony Blair, Jared Kushner, Egypt, or Israel? This dynamic prolongs conflict rather than resolving it.
Recognition could have been conditional on reforms: releasing hostages, Hamas stepping down, recognizing Israel as a state, committing to peace and security, and signing international human rights obligations. Even if Palestinians chose a monarchy, it should be under legitimate frameworks, not the arbitrary control of leaders who shift positions for convenience. Without durable institutions, current actors are incentivized to cling to power and continue fighting for survival.
Meanwhile, they claim propaganda victories, which allows them to recruit more followers. The message they present is: “After a horrific terrorist attack, we gained international recognition.” That message is not only to Palestinians but to the entire region: this is the way to pressure Israel and the global community. It radicalizes the area further and emboldens factions in the West that fund or promote Hamas and similar groups.
On the ground, politically, nothing has changed. However, recognition can strengthen the bad actors already in place. It is possible to pressure Israel politically without handing victories to extremists. Western leaders could work with Palestinians seeking to remove their corrupt leadership toward a civilian transitional authority committed to de-radicalization and demilitarization. Instead, Western leaders rushed to gain approval from constituencies and signal foreign policy relevance, without considering the consequences—the information warfare and political fallout. That is precisely what we will see: no improvement for Israelis or Palestinians, and rising demands from the same constituencies. These demands may go beyond aid or ceasefires and include unilateral sanctions against Israel, without enforcing sanctions on Hamas or its enablers, such as Qatar. We are already seeing this. The European Commission has threatened sanctions on Israeli trade while doing nothing to pressure Qatar, which continues to host Hamas’s political leadership. These are destabilizing signals and certainly not conducive to resolving the conflict.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Irina.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/07
Maaria Mozaffar is an attorney, legislative drafter, mediator, author, and speaker who has been advancing equity since the early 2000s. She turns high-stakes conversations into inclusive, dignity-centered policies that counter division and dehumanization. Connecting personal leadership to community power, Maaria creates tangible pathways from conflict to consensus, empowering people to educate, engage, and mobilize. Her legislative models are replicated nationwide, and her mediations translate lived experience into actionable reform. A trusted commentator and mentor, she equips parents, advocates, and institutions to navigate censorship, religious freedom, and civil rights with empathy and rigor. Maaria’s throughline is simple: small actions, taken seriously, produce lasting systemic change.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Why are small actions important to emphasize as catalysts for systemic change?
Maaria Mozaffar: Small actions are important for the simple reason that they are doable without being overwhelming. We build our muscle of intention and action in small steps. Also, I have learned, by observing so many who choose to not pass the buck, that small steps are the building blocks of momentum that we need to drive impactful change.
Jacobsen: What is a recent practical example of a micro-intervention scaled into a replicated policy model?
Mozaffar: A conversation. It’s that simple. I had a conversation with student athletes who never got a chance to play high school sports because of the restrictions of modesty vs. the realities of high school sports uniforms. Afterward, I decided to ponder how to address it. Today, the legislation “Inclusive Athletic Attire Act,” which allows for modification of uniforms for modesty and faith purposes, first passed in Illinois, has been replicated in several states.
Jacobsen: How do you operationalize dignity-centered mediation in polarized settings?
Mozaffar: You start with recognizing the other party’s humanity and honoring their perspective. And at each point in the mediation process, you come back to that place of appreciation. This allows for each party to “see” the other’s reality vs. simply dismissing it. It also reaffirms the need for reciprocity when grace is needed.
Jacobsen: What tools can families use to protect inclusive curricula?
Mozaffar: Networking: This allows us to create alliance-building across communities to find commonalities. As we know, many voices are stronger than one.
Purposeful community meetings: We have coalition-led meetings with school superintendents so that, at the request of stakeholders, issues are presented to leadership with a united front.
Calls to Action: Add action items for coalitions that are precise and uniformity-driven. For example: “Call your school administration and demand inclusive history textbooks by 2026.”
Rely on experts: Look for academic leaders who focus on the curriculum you want to bring and have them testify about the significance of the need.
Jacobsen: As NPR defunding advances, what equity and democratic risks arise?
Mozaffar: NPR offers families across the nation critical news and programming that caters to the diverse demographics of our country for free. It plays the role of equalizing information access for households that have disadvantages in access to digital media. Without access to media such as NPR, we are creating crucial gaps in citizenry who can weigh in on issues of public health, safety, needs for financial assistance and, of course, civic engagement. Without information, residents and citizens cannot make empowered decisions about issues that impact their daily lives and future needs. In a nutshell, without access to information, they can never advocate for themselves, which is fundamental for a thriving democracy.
Jacobsen: How has your experience as an attorney with a global upbringing informed frameworks resisting dehumanization in the law?
Mozaffar: Having been exposed to different cultures in the world throughout my life, I have come to see only the commonalities of human identity. As an attorney, I see and use the power of empathy to advocate for issues that I myself am not experiencing. But through this lens I also recognize how institutions can create circumstances that unfairly set policies that treat people as “lesser” than others due to their race, culture or faith, driven by bias within the legal system.
Dehumanization in law is identified as unfair practices and policies that treat certain human lives as expendable. We see this in mass incarceration, in poor access to health care in jails, in unfair legal ramifications, in racial, ethnic and religious profiling in arrests and sentencing, and in policies that increase recidivism rather than rehabilitation so that individuals can improve their lives.
Jacobsen: What stakeholder-mapping and drafting techniques effectively convert opponents?
Mozaffar: Identifying issues that overlap among different demographics helps to create an incredibly unifying and persuasive narrative. It creates commonalities for stakeholders to recognize and consider. This should follow with the intentional inclusion of legislative language that brings people together. Phrases such as “including but not limited to Muslims, Jews, Christians, Hindus and other faiths,” or “all those impacted by,” serve as catch-all phrases that allow stakeholders to see themselves and their communities—and even their opponents—in legislation.
Jacobsen: What personal leadership practices sustain community engagement?
- Not passing the buck.
- Taking responsibility and accountability for how you yourself can take little steps to improve conditions for your community.
- Intentionally being informed.
- Intentionally being empathetic toward others in your community, in a way that propels you to aid others.
- Understanding that we are all interdependent.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Maaria.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/06
Mark Temnycky is a Ukrainian-American analyst and freelance journalist specializing in American, European, and Eurasia affairs. He serves as a Nonresident Fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center (since December 2021), and he is a geopolitics contributor at Forbes. Previously, he spent nearly seven years as a U.S. defense contractor supporting the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition & Sustainment. His work appears across leading outlets and think tanks, with a curated portfolio of articles and media available online.
In this interview with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Temnycky outlines NATO’s posture after Estonia’s 12 minute MiG 31 airspace breach. He explains Article 4 consultations, conditions for tougher rules of engagement, and a developing counter drone playbook uniting detection, electronic warfare, AI, and rapid response, reinforced by Ukraine to Poland training. He details integration of Turkey’s AWACS with UK Eastern Sentry patrols, continuous Baltic Air Policing, and legal and financial risks of an EU reparations loan backed by immobilized Russian assets. Temnycky notes U.S. deliveries via the allies-funded PURL channel, stresses credible military red lines, and distills Zapad 2025 lessons for the Suwałki corridor.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: After Estonia’s 12-minute MiG-31 airspace breach and the North Atlantic Council statement, what would trigger tough rules of engagement?
Mark Temnycky: Estonia’s invocation of NATO Article 4 signals allied consultations on collective security measures, including potential escalation of defensive postures. If further aggression or repeated violations continue, NATO could authorize more robust defensive actions under existing collective defense commitments.
Jacobsen: With NATO reinforcing the eastern flank, Lithuania authorized shoot-downs. Ukraine training Polish forces on drone defense. Is there a common NATO counter-drone playbook?
Temnycky: NATO is developing and testing an integrated counter-drone playbook, with a focus on detection, electronic warfare, and rapid response. Exercises like Ramstein Legacy and JPOW 2025 emphasize cooperation between member states, blending air defense with counter-unmanned aircraft systems. Ukraine’s hands-on experience training Polish forces enhances NATO’s evolving tactics, particularly against low-cost, swarm, and covert drones. The alliance is integrating AI, intelligence sharing, and multi-domain defense into its approach, combining air defense, electronic warfare, and interoperability among allies.
Jacobsen: How does Turkey’s AWACS deployment to Lithuania integrate with UK Eastern Sentry air defense patrols?
Temnycky: Turkey’s AWACS in Lithuania helps NATO detect Russian drones and low-flying aircraft that ground radars might miss. It works alongside UK fighter jets patrolling Poland by sharing real-time data, improving overall air defense. This combined effort strengthens NATO’s ability to respond quickly to threats along the eastern border.
Jacobsen: What about Baltic air policing day-to-day?
Temnycky: Baltic air policing is a continuous NATO mission protecting the airspace of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, which lack their own fighter jets. NATO members rotate deployments to conduct regular patrols and quick intercepts of Russian aircraft probing the region. Operating 24/7, this surveillance deters airspace violations and demonstrates NATO’s collective defense commitment on the eastern flank.
Jacobsen: What are the legal and financial risks of the EU’s proposed “[reparations loan]” backed by immobilized Russian assets? (explainer; Germany update)
Temnycky: The EU’s proposed reparations loan aims to provide up to €130 billion to Ukraine by issuing bonds backed by frozen Russian assets, enabling Ukraine to finance its defense and reconstruction while postponing repayment until reparations are agreed upon.
This would provide significant assistance for Ukraine’s defense and ease financial pressure on EU members, who have collectively provided nearly €200 billion in aid since the invasion began.
Legal risks arise from using assets that are still officially Russian property, necessitating careful navigation of sovereign immunity and property rights to avoid disputes that could undermine future asset freezes. Financially, the loan spreads risk among EU states and investors, and could set a precedent for other countries seizing assets of adversaries.
While balancing urgency and legal norms, uncertainties persist regarding political outcomes and investor confidence; however, the approach reflects a pragmatic effort to hold Russia accountable and support Ukraine’s recovery.
Jacobsen: With the U.S. resuming deliveries via the allies-funded PURL channel (policy update), what realistic timelines and sustainment costs can be expected?
Temnycky: The U.S. has approved initial shipments of weapons to Ukraine through the PURL channel, pooling NATO allies’ funds to purchase U.S. arms. Deliveries, including Patriot missiles and HIMARS rocket launchers, are underway, with more packages expected. PURL enhances coordination and financial support, ensuring Ukraine receives critical defense and counterattack equipment.
Jacobsen: Following Zelensky’s UNGA warning of the “most destructive arms race” and NATO’s pledge to use “all means” after incursions, what will reduce escalation?
Temnycky: Clear deterrence is needed to reduce escalation. NATO must maintain strong defense capabilities and establish credible red lines while reinforcing Ukraine’s defense without provoking Russia. A balanced approach that combines military readiness and diplomacy, including pursuing diplomatic channels, is essential to maintain stability and prevent conflict from escalating.
Jacobsen: What lessons from Zapad-2025 should shape Allied air and missile defense across the Suwałki corridor? (context)
Temnycky: Zapad-2025 highlighted integrated air and missile defense, precision fires, and electronic warfare to disrupt NATO defenses. Lessons include prioritizing hardened command centers, strong missile defense layers, and resilient communications to withstand pre-emptive strikes. NATO should also enhance its rapid detection and coordinated responses to hybrid threats, such as drones and electronic attacks, ensuring the corridor remains defensible and connected to the alliance.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Mark, see you next week.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/06
Dr. Katie Suleta is a public health researcher, educator, and science writer who focuses on science communication, evidence quality, and combating health misinformation. Her bylines include STAT (on the largely unregulated boom in health coaches), MedPage Today (on moral injury and the brain drain in public health), and Skeptical Inquirer (which everyone should be reading). She holds a Doctor of Health Science from George Washington University, an MPH from DePaul University, and an MS in Health Informatics from Boston University. She previously served as Regional Director of Research in Graduate Medical Education at HCA Healthcare and now works with Colorado Medicaid.
In this interview with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Suleta argues that today’s assaults on science are coordinated, not accidental. She details how political interference can freeze or cancel federal grants, destabilize labs, trainees, and multi-year projects, with early-career scientists being disproportionately affected. Courts issue mixed remedies, compounding uncertainty. Suleta links cost and ideology narratives to attacks on academia and DEI, fueling a chilling effect and a profit-driven wellness industry. The outcome is brain drain: scientists move abroad or exit science altogether, undermining innovation and public health. She highlights moral injury when professionals are prevented from serving communities by defunding, censorship, and misinformation.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with Dr. Katie Suleta. Thank you for joining me today. You wrote an article for Skeptical Inquirer in the Strobe and Tech of Science section, “Brain Drain and the Consequences of Attacking Science,” Volume 49, Number 5, September/October 2025. You frame the current assault on science, academia, and research not as isolated incidents but as part of a larger pattern. There is a vector here, a direction of attack. Why is this not an accident, but rather a calculated act? What is the vector space, the direction, and why?
Dr. Katie Suleta: The first central front was a targeted campaign against higher education, including federal research funding. In early September 2025, a federal judge in Boston ruled that the administration acted unlawfully when it froze and attempted to cancel more than $2 billion in federal research grants to Harvard, finding the moves retaliatory and unconstitutional. That ruling underscored how quickly entire research portfolios can be imperilled when politics intrudes on grantmaking.
We have also seen broader waves of grant terminations and freezes affecting multiple institutions. Courts have split on remedies—one Supreme Court decision in August 2025 limited lower courts’ power to order reinstatement of cancelled NIH grants—while, separately, new lawsuits challenge sweeping freezes at public systems like the University of California. The net effect is uncertainty for labs, trainees, and multiyear projects.
This disruption disproportionately affects early-career scientists and graduate students, who depend on stable funding streams and continuity in mentorship and lab placements. When grants are paused or cancelled mid-cycle, those most vulnerable feel it first. That is part of what I emphasize in the Skeptical Inquirer piece.
Jacobsen: For people who see themselves as “arbiters of reality,” how do these funding actions operate in tandem with public attacks in the media and commentary space? What rhetoric is used to justify them?
Suleta: The justifications fall into two recurring buckets.
First, “cost” narratives—claims that academia is bloated and that cutting grants reins in overhead. In practice, competitive federal grants are the lifeblood of actual research activity; proposals to slash NIH outlays or terminate awards mid-stream translate into fewer funded projects, fewer trainees, and delays in drug and public-health pipelines.
Second, “ideology” narratives—assertions that universities are indoctrinating students or that DEI-related efforts taint research, used to rationalize freezes or terminations. Recent litigation and rulings revolve around whether such actions are lawful and what courts can do to remedy them; meanwhile, campuses face investigations and pressure campaigns that shift the public burden of proof onto institutions, regardless of evidentiary standards.
In a healthy debate, the burden of proof sits with the claimant. When that norm is abandoned, accusations become performative weapons, and universities end up defending against vibes rather than evidence. The long-tail consequence is a chilling effect on research independence and scientific communication.
Jacobsen: What is the likely timescale from funding cuts to the loss of innovation, whether in terms of patents, or slowing or halting clinical trials?
Suleta: Immediately. Clinical trials were shut down almost overnight. Innovation often emerges from labs funded by these grants. Ideas originate from a principal investigator, a co-investigator, or even a graduate student. However, once a lab is forced to close due to a lack of funding, all work comes to a halt.
People may still have ideas, but without resources, those ideas cannot be tested or developed. Funding is what allows concepts to move from imagination to execution.
Jacobsen: We could solve this by hiring only string theorists. Paper, pencil—no need for experiments! Looking at CERN, I remember a story told by Dr. Michio Kaku from the 1990s when Congress debated the Superconducting Super Collider in Texas. They had already dug an enormous tunnel at a cost of billions. A congressman asked a physicist whether the collider would “find God.” The physicist replied, “No, we’re looking for the Higgs boson.” Congress promptly cancelled the project, and the tunnel was literally abandoned and later partially filled in—American politics at work.
On that note, what about brain drain? America is known for cultivating some of the greatest minds of its generation. This morning, I attended an online physics conference where Leonard Susskind and Edward Witten spoke. It was a dream come true to ask Witten a question. America has places like the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton, which attract extraordinary talent.
But if those minds feel threatened, cut off, or scapegoated—say in an echo of the “Yellow Peril” fears directed at Chinese scientists, or in a resurgence of antisemitism against Jewish scientists—what happens to American innovation?
Suleta: The risk of brain drain is very real. Mid-career and late-career professionals are already being struck by funding cuts and institutional attacks, resulting in the loss of labs and jobs. But we must also consider early-career scientists and trainees.
If early-career researchers cannot find positions, or if they are forced to compete directly against displaced mid- and late-career scientists, their chances of securing stable employment shrink drastically. That undermines the pipeline of the next generation of scientists.
Two outcomes then occur: some leave for more supportive countries that actively recruit them, while others leave the field altogether. Both are damaging, but the second is worse. If a scientist relocates abroad, they may still contribute to global knowledge. But if they abandon science entirely, that is a permanent loss to humanity.
When scientists leave the field, they often take jobs in other sectors. That is not only a brain drain for the sciences—it also disrupts the labour market in unusual ways. Suddenly, people who would not usually compete for jobs in other industries begin flooding those sectors because opportunities in science have collapsed. The squeeze in scientific careers creates ripple effects elsewhere, and it is a terrible setup for our future.
The options end up being stark. Either we export our brilliance abroad, or we force people out of science altogether. Historically, the United States has been accused of draining other countries of their talent because so many people wanted to come here to study and work at our institutions. However, the reverse is now happening, and it is happening quickly. We are exporting our highly trained scientists—and even our future potential scientists—to other countries, while pushing others out of the field entirely. That creates a pipeline problem: there are no replacements for those who retire, move abroad, or leave the field of science. The result is a vacuum that other countries will inevitably fill.
Jacobsen: You will notice this more through firsthand experience than I can convey through just reading. But as far as I know, women professionals in the sciences—including health sciences and social sciences—have historically had a harder time obtaining grants. While this is less of a problem than it was 50 years ago, does today’s wave of brain drain and funding cuts disproportionately affect early-career or late-career women researchers? Or does the impact even out once you control for variables?
Suleta: That is a difficult question to answer at the 50,000-foot level. But I can say that some regions of science that are more female-dominated—public health, for example—have been gutted. The workforce in public health includes a large proportion of women researchers, and those cuts hit them particularly hard.
I cannot give a universal answer across all fields because the data becomes fuzzy when you aggregate everything together. But from my background in public health, the answer is yes—it is hitting women in the sciences. That said, it is not only women. Anyone working in health sciences, public health, or any research that can be framed as “controversial” is vulnerable. And the definition of what counts as controversial has shifted dramatically over the past nine months.
I recently spoke with an agricultural researcher, and even in that field, funding is being disrupted—often under the banner of targeting DEI initiatives. The problem is far-reaching, and it is not confined to a single demographic or discipline.
I was told that researchers were not allowed to use the word “biodiversity” because it contains the word “diversity.” Instead, they had to substitute terms like “plant variation.”
Jacobsen: That is the Enola Gay problem: the language itself becomes taboo.
Suleta: There are many such anecdotal stories, and the result is that this pressure is not limited to the health sciences—it affects all fields of science. It is just that the healthcare sector has been hit particularly hard because it was a deliberate target.
Jacobsen: One very worthwhile project would be to analyze how language in scientific publishing shifts under political pressure. Imagine a meta-analysis across disciplines—tracking keywords in grant proposals, federal guidelines, and leading journals—and mapping how terminology evolves to align with administrative constraints. That would reveal how censorship-by-language trickles into scientific discourse.
You could argue that it is not perfectly bidirectional—that supporting pseudoscience is not the same as opposing science—but it is close. Cutting funding for science, or deploying rhetoric that undermines inquiry, is effectively fertilizer for pseudoscience. It erodes the culture of critical inquiry and weakens the scientific temper in society.
Both of us are grateful for the work of Skeptical Inquirer and, as skeptics and humanists, it is clear these cuts amount to advocacy for pseudoscience by default. By withdrawing support from science—the primary remedy to misinformation—leaders embolden nonsense. How do you see purveyors of pseudoscience being emboldened downstream by this?
Suleta: This was telegraphed during the first Trump administration with Kellyanne Conway’s infamous “alternative facts” comment. At the time, it was easy to mock—it became a meme. However, the approach is now being structured. By defunding science and replacing independent expertise with loyalists or appointees pursuing financial or ideological agendas, they create an infrastructure of “alternative facts.”
You can see this dynamic in the prominence of figures like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. He has no scientific background or training, yet he promotes beliefs that are unmoored from evidence. Some of those beliefs are outright delusions, as you put it more politely than I would. And many of them intersect with industry interests, particularly in the wellness sector. That is a powerful combination: ideology combined with a profit motive.
I do not want to become a defender of the pharmaceutical industry, but the wellness industry has grown into a behemoth—essentially an unregulated alternative to our healthcare system. Instead of medical doctors, you have health coaches. Instead of prescriptions, you have supplements for sale. What has emerged is a parallel structure from which many stand to profit.
This became especially clear with the recent nomination of Casey Means for Surgeon General. STAT News reported on her conflicts of interest—her involvement in supplement sales, her marketing of supplements, and her board positions at multiple wellness companies. If these ties were to a pharmaceutical board, there would be outrage. But because they are tied to the “wellness” sector, which trades in vibes and imagery of caring for the public, the scrutiny has been softer. Yet what they are selling is not supported by science. There is no evidence base—it is smoke and mirrors. Their message is that they have your best interests at heart, unlike those “pesky” scientists, doctors, or pharmaceutical executives.
Jacobsen: I want to touch on moral injury. I first encountered the term during one of several fellowships at the University of California, Irvine. It struck me as a profound concept. We cannot cover it in full here, but could you explain what moral injury is and why public health professionals, in particular, are facing it—especially alongside budget cuts, brain drain, and the influence of conspiratorial pseudoscience at the highest levels of leadership?
Suleta: Moral injury is indeed a fascinating and painful concept, and it hits public health professionals especially hard. People enter public health because they are deeply committed to a mission: improving the health and well-being of as many people as possible.
Within that mission, people specialize. My background is in HIV, for example. I began my career working on U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) funds. I worked for city and local public health departments, as well as internationally. For many, the work is not just a job but a calling.
When systemic barriers, funding cuts, or political interference prevent professionals from fulfilling that mission, it creates moral injury. It is not simply burnout; it is the feeling of being complicit in harm because you are unable to do the work you know is necessary to protect and improve lives.
When you work in the HIV space, everyone you meet is dedicated to combating HIV on a global level. It is very much a team effort. But when you defund public health infrastructure and the people working within it, you undermine that collective mission.
Public health is already a difficult sell because its benefits are largely invisible unless something goes wrong. Prevention is notoriously hard to quantify and even harder to make tangible. If you prevent a certain number of infections or deaths, the public never sees those events that did not happen. To them, it feels hypothetical.
The moral injury stems from understanding the vital importance of that prevention work on the ground. USAID is a good example. Much of what it funded was food for refugees and HIV medication. The people doing that work were committed to improving life for those experiencing extreme circumstances. When that funding is stripped, those professionals are left thinking about the people they served daily—people who may now starve or die without medication.
Even if the workers themselves can return to stable homes and families, they carry the weight of knowing that their patients and communities may not be able to survive. That is the essence of moral injury: the fundamental understanding of what those funding cuts mean in real, human terms—consequences that most people are detached from because they do not see them in their day-to-day lives.
Jacobsen: Doctor, thank you very much for your expertise and your time today. It was a pleasure to meet you. Thank you for keeping up the skeptic and humanist fight on behalf of us all.
Suleta: Thank you so much for the opportunity to discuss these issues and for elevating such vital topics.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/05
Irina Tsukerman is a human rights and national security attorney based in New York and Connecticut. She earned her Bachelor of Arts in National and Intercultural Studies and Middle East Studies from Fordham University in 2006, followed by a Juris Doctor from Fordham University School of Law in 2009. She operates a boutique national security law practice. She serves as President of Scarab Rising, Inc., a media and security strategic advisory firm. Additionally, she is the Editor-in-Chief of The Washington Outsider, which focuses on foreign policy, geopolitics, security, and human rights. She is actively involved in several professional organizations, including the American Bar Association’s Energy, Environment, and Science and Technology Sections, where she serves as Program Vice Chair in the Oil and Gas Committee. She is also a member of the New York City Bar Association. She serves on the Middle East and North Africa Affairs Committee and affiliates with the Foreign and Comparative Law Committee.
In this interview with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Tsukerman calls the outcome a political win for Israel and Trump, yet coordination with Europe is lacking, and Washington has deprioritized Iran. She critiques the UN’s focus on Gaza over Russia’s war, warns European sanctions are driven by politics, and urges decisive NATO deterrence after Russian airspace violations. Haiti’s gang-run collapse demands coherent intervention. She flags risky U.S. concessions to China.
Interview conducted September 21, 2025.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: We’re here for insiders. Today, we will use sources from Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, UN News, Reuters, and AP News, focusing on global contexts.
The first update from UN News is significant: the UN Security Council failed to pass a draft that would have extended Iran sanctions relief. The text—tabled by Council president South Korea—won only four votes (China, Russia, Pakistan, Algeria), short of the nine required. Nine members voted against, and two abstained (Guyana and South Korea). This failure clears the path for the “snapback” of UN sanctions under Resolution 2231.
Had it passed, the draft would have kept relief in place. Because it failed, the default is a re-imposition of UN measures tied to the 2015 JCPOA unless diplomacy produces an alternative before the deadline.
France, Germany, and the UK (the E3) have already initiated the snapback track, with President Emmanuel Macron saying sanctions are likely to be reimposed by the end of the month.
Irina Tsukerman: After the June 13–24, 2025, Israel war, which included U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear sites, Iran sharply curtailed cooperation with inspectors. The IAEA reduced or withdrew in-field inspections for safety, and subsequent access has remained highly restricted.
Intelligence and open-source analyses indicate parts of Iran’s nuclear program persisted, and some enriched material may have been moved before or during the strikes, though quantities and locations remain uncertain.
With the draft failing in the Council, the snapback of UN sanctions now appears set to proceed absent a last-minute agreement, increasing economic pressure on Tehran. Iranian officials say they will withstand any renewed measures. It will likely not stop Iran’s nuclear program; it will only increase financial pressure.
Essentially, we are looking at a return to the pre-JCPOA structure. This is a political win for Israel and for the Trump administration, although ironically, it was not coordinated with Europe. The initiative came from the Europeans, who reached their own conclusions.
Politically, this is a win. But the United States and Israel are not fully capitalizing on it. This would have been an opportunity to re-engage with Europe on the shared concern over Iran’s nuclear program, yet all parties are operating separately. The Europeans are acting in concert, Israel is monitoring Iran for potential aggression and warning regional actors, and the United States has shifted focus after failing to revive diplomacy.
Jacobsen: So Washington has deprioritized Iran?
Tsukerman: The U.S. has paid little attention to Iran since the strikes, instead focusing on Ukraine–Russia diplomacy, broader Middle East issues, and domestic concerns. Iran has fallen off the radar. Meanwhile, the EU trade agreement is unravelling, and after the U.S. trip to the UK, there is still no comprehensive deal with London. This could have been a rallying point for cooperation, but it has not become one.
Jacobsen: Is this despite the scale of the issue?
Tsukerman: Yes. The reactions from the international community have been muted. There is little excitement from either pro-sanctions or anti-sanctions camps. Discussions are limited because many do not think the outcome will have much impact, or because Iran is not seen as a top priority.
Jacobsen: And in the U.S. specifically?
Tsukerman: There has been an ousting of several pro-Iran spokespeople. One example is former Iranian diplomat Hossein Mousavian, who had been a scholar at Princeton. He lost his post, reportedly under Trump administration pressure. He was one of the strongest proponents of the JCPOA and an opponent of intrusive nuclear inspections. Since leaving Princeton, little is publicly known about his activities.
They are on the back burner. The discourse has shifted toward Iraqi militias and speculation about Iran’s next steps in rebuilding its capabilities.
Recently, a dual national researcher held by an Iraqi group was released with U.S. and Israeli assistance. The release generated headlines at the time but quickly faded. Iran, while important, remains on the back burner for the international community.
Jacobsen: What about at the UN?
Tsukerman: Attention is shifting to the General Assembly. Most focus is on U.S.–China dynamics and Gaza. Iran, meanwhile, has been reintegrating regionally. It took part in the Arab–Muslim summit in Doha to support Qatar’s sovereignty after Israeli operations against Hamas. Iranian officials also met with Saudi Arabia’s crown prince to discuss bilateral engagement and security. Rather than confrontation, Iran is positioning itself as part of the broader Muslim world, leveraging Gaza tensions to soften sanctions pressure.
We may see Middle Eastern states soft-pedalling sanctions enforcement, even offering backing to Iran on specific issues.
Jacobsen: Now, to the United Nations General Assembly, Secretary-General António Guterres issued a stark warning to world leaders on the eve of the 80th high-level week. He stressed the multiplication of conflicts, widening political divides, and growing impunity, where states act as though they can do whatever they wish. He pointed to debt crises in developing countries, inequality, and lack of concessional funding. He highlighted three priorities: peace and security in the Middle East, with a focus on Gaza and the two-state solution; urgent humanitarian aid; and climate action, with a demand for new national climate plans that dramatically cut emissions to avoid an irreversible disaster. His remarks seemed pointed.
Tsukerman: The first part implicitly compared Russia and Israel. A UN panel recently accused Israel of committing genocide in Gaza, while no UN body has labelled Russia’s actions in Ukraine genocide, despite well-documented massacres of civilians under active investigation as war crimes. In Israel’s case, evidence of systematic targeting is far weaker; incendiary comments from some officials exist, but not from those directing military operations. The panel itself has faced criticism for including members sympathetic to Hamas.
The United States recently vetoed a Russian-proposed resolution at the UN calling for an immediate ceasefire. Washington supports dismantling Hamas’s military infrastructure, provided operations are relatively short and remain within legal and ethical norms, given conditions in Gaza. Yet Russia’s war in Ukraine affects far more people worldwide.
Russia’s war has disrupted global grain supplies, fueled asymmetric operations, and included recent intelligence findings—such as Moscow being behind explosive parcels sent to European embassies and pig heads dumped outside Paris mosques in a staged intimidation campaign. Despite this, much of the world’s diplomatic focus is fixed on Gaza.
Jacobsen: Why such a disproportionate focus?
Tsukerman: Several reasons. Pan-Arab states and broader Muslim audiences emphasize Gaza heavily, often through Russian and Chinese amplification. Some European governments have also rushed to declare support for a Palestinian state without addressing borders or bilateral agreements. Others have embargoed arms to Israel or even imposed trade sanctions. These moves rely almost entirely on casualty figures and reports from Gaza, which are controlled by Hamas and cannot be independently verified during active conflict.
Policy is being shaped without investigation. Civilian casualties are real, but the numbers remain uncertain. Despite that, sanctions are being pursued unusually fast. Usually, sanctions follow lengthy investigations and deliberations. Here, decisions seem driven more by political frustration, domestic constituencies, and Arab or Muslim partners’ pressure. It is less a direct response to confirmed war crimes and more about appeasement and managing public opinion.
The concern is that European foreign policy is being shaped by domestic pressures or external manipulation. This undermines sanctions as a legitimate tool for changing state behaviour. In the long term, that misuse will backfire, regardless of how Israel’s actions are evaluated. Sanctions are meant to address clearly established violations, not serve as a way to air grievances.
Jacobsen: Let’s pivot. Haiti, Amnesty International reported on the Lombard massacre of September 11–12 in Haiti, where gangs killed at least 40 people and set dozens of homes on fire. César Marín, Amnesty’s Deputy Regional Director for Campaigns in the Americas, called it a painful reminder of the collapse of state protection. He urged immediate action to ensure security and justice. What has the international community done?
Tsukerman: So far, efforts have been weak. The U.S. imposed sanctions on individuals, Kenya has offered security support, and El Salvador was approached for its experience with gang elimination. But without a more decisive international intervention, Haiti’s gangs will continue terrorizing communities. Domestically, the Trump administration has tried to revoke Temporary Protected Status for Haitian refugees, sparking ongoing legal battles. Hundreds of thousands of Haitians, along with Venezuelans and others, face uncertainty in the U.S.
Jacobsen: And the situation on the ground?
Tsukerman: Dire. Gangs are heavily armed and organized, effectively overrunning the country. Haiti has seen repeated changes in leadership, none of which have been effective in restoring order. Local law enforcement and the military lack capacity. Without a serious, systematic external enforcement mechanism, the violence will continue.
Jacobsen: Why isn’t it prioritized more globally?
Tsukerman: Haiti’s crisis is devastating locally but largely self-contained. Unlike cartels in Mexico or Colombia, Haiti’s gangs have not disrupted global markets or directly impacted distant states. While it fuels migration pressure on the U.S. and nearby countries, it has not elicited sustained international attention.
Haiti’s gangs remain locally focused. They have not yet exported violence abroad. If they consolidate power enough to do so, we may see a stronger international response. For now, because the threat is contained, there is little will to commit financial or human resources to stop the mass violence. It is horrific and highlights the ineffectiveness of international security mechanisms.
Past international interventions and NGO efforts have often been corrupt, mismanaged, or poorly structured. Resources were looted or wasted. Haiti is a microcosm of what happens when crises are treated as isolated rather than as part of a broader global security structure. The international order is failing to produce organized, effective responses to fragmented societies. Haiti is now a failed state.
It has no alignment with international terrorist groups or state sponsors so that no outside actor can be easily blamed. These gangs are not proxies like Hezbollah or cartels tied to state intelligence. They are local, leaderless manifestations of violent disorder. Contrast that with El Salvador, which eventually reduced gang violence after decades of extreme crime, economic collapse, and social devastation. I do not believe Haiti has leadership willing or able to implement comparable measures, even if it wanted to.
Jacobsen: Let’s turn to Russia and Ukraine. On Friday, Russia sent three military jets into NATO member Estonia’s airspace for 12 minutes. Estonia called the incursion “unprecedentedly brazen.” Recently, Russia also launched 19 drones that penetrated deep into Poland, past Warsaw. What do you make of this escalation?
Tsukerman: It was not incidental. A few days earlier, Russian drones “wandered” into Poland, and NATO issued warnings. Then came this deliberate incursion just ahead of the Zapad (“West”) exercises in Belarus, which explicitly simulated an attack on Europe. This was a clear signal, a psychological pressure campaign to divide NATO, and a test of the alliance’s resolve.
Jacobsen: How did NATO respond?
Tsukerman: NATO mobilized quickly to intercept and shoot down drones, but all measures remained defensive. There was no counteroffensive or announced deterrent. Russia will interpret that restraint as an invitation to continue probing. Indeed, following the Estonia incident, more drones were detected violating Polish and Romanian airspace. Romania escorted one out but refused to engage militarily, signalling fear of escalation. Public polling in Romania reflects widespread anxiety over a Russian attack.
Jacobsen: And Estonia?
Tsukerman: The three Russian jets were escorted out by Italian F-35s, but again, not shot down—despite the deliberate nature of the violation. Until NATO decides to meet such incursions with decisive force, they will continue. Consider Turkey in 2015: when a Russian jet violated its airspace, Turkey shot it down within seconds. That single action ended further violations.
After Turkey shot down the Russian jet in 2015, there were no further violations of its airspace. There was no nuclear escalation, no war. That shows deterrence works. NATO is more than capable of projecting overwhelming force against a militarily overstretched Russia, but it continues to play by Moscow’s rules. Instead of endless warnings and finger-wagging, NATO must send a clear message in the only language Russia understands: decisive military strength.
Jacobsen: Reports indicate Trump is preparing to meet with South Korean leadership in the coming weeks, followed by a visit to China. In the meantime, his concessions to Beijing are striking. He extended TikTok’s deadline yet again, announcing a deal that allows it to operate through a U.S.-based shell company while maintaining the same Chinese algorithms, security risks, and propaganda pipelines.
Tsukerman: He has cut military funding to Taiwan in hopes of securing a trade deal with China. Scheduling multiple top-level meetings with Xi Jinping is already a significant win for Xi—undeserved, given that Xi has pursued an ultra-nationalist strategy, isolating China and deepening confrontation with the global community. There are signs of internal factional pressure against him, but even so, Trump’s moves lend him legitimacy and propaganda value.
Xi has taken China’s confrontational approach further than his predecessors, making management of the U.S.–China relationship far more difficult. Trump, by preplanning a China visit regardless of how things go in South Korea, signals desperation for a deal. That weakens the U.S. position and emboldens China to harden its negotiating stance.
Alarmingly, no serious China experts are advising him. We saw the consequences of that with the Russia policy. It will be worse with China, whose diplomacy is built on millennia of tradition, protocol, and cultural strategy. Beijing’s negotiators are experienced and difficult to read. Walking into that without expertise is a dangerous move.
The cultural and procedural aspects of Chinese diplomacy mean Trump’s delegation is likely to miss key signals and red flags. Without expertise, they will not achieve their goals.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Irina.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/05
To understand the core Christian point of view,
what Christianity is, to them,
who Christ is, for them,
when they speak of Christ being killed,
and asking who are individuals culpable for this,
who is responsible,
imagine them speaking this,
not to you,
but into a mirror,
human sin makes the Passion necessary, to them.
It’s in all the language:
“My Saviour.”
“Theosis.”
“Our Lord and Saviour.”
“Propitiation.”
“Our Lord Jesus Christ.”
“Expiation.”
“Our Lord and Savior.”
“Atonement.”
“My Redeemer.”
“Sanctification.”
“My Shepherd.”
“Repentance.”
“Redemption.”
“New Creation.”
“Agnus Dei.”
“Paschal Mystery.”
“Absolution.”
“Suffering Servant.”
“Kyrie eleison.”
“Lamb of God.”
“King of kings.”
“Lord of lords.”
“Great High Priest.”
“Light of the World.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/04
Chip Lupo is an analyst with WalletHub, where he specializes in consumer data and economic trends that impact everyday life. His expertise ranges from financial behavior to cultural consumption, providing readers with accessible insights into reports on topics like diversity, debt, and lifestyle habits. At WalletHub, Lupo works on studies that examine how economic and cultural factors shape communities, including analyses of coffee consumption and city rankings. His work blends government data, nonprofit research, and cultural sources to paint a complete picture of American trends, helping audiences better understand the forces shaping daily life and consumer decisions.
In this interview with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, WalletHub analyst Lupo discusses the 2025 rankings of the best coffee cities in America. Portland, Orlando, Long Beach, Miami, and Seattle lead the list, reflecting strong access, affordability, and vibrant coffee culture. The report uses a 12-factor analysis, giving extra weight to the number of coffee shops and affordable, highly rated cafés per capita. Lupo highlights the role of economics, lifestyle, and cultural trends—including the rise of iced coffee in warm states and the importance of free Wi-Fi in coffee shops. He also explains why border cities like Laredo rank low due to economic barriers.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: The best coffee cities in America. We did the 2024 version last year, and this is a follow-up to see what the audience thinks. I did not know this: coffee first became popular in the U.S. after the Boston Tea Party, when switching from tea to coffee was seen as “patriotic,” according to PBS. Starbucks debuted in 1971, and now it has basically taken over. In Canada, Starbucks and Tim Hortons are the two major coffee suppliers.
Chip Lupo: Yes, interesting, because in our house, we primarily use Keurig pods, and I always make it a point to have Tim Hortons as part of my pod collection.
Jacobsen: We appreciate you. I travelled through 12 countries over seven weeks recently, across North America, Europe, and a small portion of the Middle East. Tim Hortons is astonishingly cheap when compared with other goods in those regions. For example, in Jordan, prices are generally low. In Iceland or Luxembourg, they are relatively high. In Canada, the cost of coffee at Tim Hortons is much lower compared to many other goods, so in relative terms, it is very affordable. I am glad you are taking advantage of that.
Lupo: We do not have any Tim Hortons restaurants here, which is a shame. However, in many of the northern border states, they are popular. Correct me if I am wrong, Tim.
Jacobsen: That is a good question—I will make sure to correct the transcript to reflect that.
Lupo: They started as a donut shop, and coffee was just a side menu item. However, it has flipped now. People are becoming more health-conscious, so donuts are no longer as dominant. More customers are drawn to coffee. Dunkin’ Donuts has followed a similar path—coffee is now the cornerstone product instead of donuts.
Jacobsen: That is so interesting.
Lupo: And it feeds into—no pun intended—America’s appetite for coffee. Approximately 67% of Americans, including myself, drink coffee every day. For me, it is twice a day, sometimes three times on weekends. Altogether, Americans consume about 519 million cups daily.
Jacobsen: That is a massive amount. This report is broader than the diversity report. That earlier ranking spread just 10 points across all 50 states. This one uses a 100-point factor analysis, and the spread between the top and bottom is significantly broader—consider the difference between Portland and Laredo, for example. Starting at the top five, we have Portland, Orlando, Long Beach, Miami, and Seattle. They are very close in the overall ranking. Why are those the best coffee cities?
Lupo: It is interesting—we have three Florida cities in the top rankings, including Tampa at number six. Long Beach also makes the list because we factor in more than just people’s coffee-drinking habits. When you think of coffee cities in America, Seattle immediately comes to mind—Portland, too. It is the climate, the vibe of the city; they are synonymous with coffee. With some of the others, it is more surprising, since they are primarily warm-weather locales. However, what I have learned is that more and more people in those areas are making iced coffee part of their daily routine, which makes sense given the weather. What all of these top cities have in common is that households spend much money on coffee.
In some cases, that is not entirely by choice, since the cost of living is going up. Moreover, as a side note, tariffs may not always be visible, but coffee prices have risen sharply in recent months. People are noticing it. Still, with two-thirds of Americans drinking coffee, most are willing to bite the bullet—maybe cut back a little, but not give it up. Nobody is likely to quit coffee for economic reasons; health might be another matter, but not economics. These cities also have an abundance of coffee shops, with a good balance between people making coffee at home and going out for it. They have affordable coffee shops, and beyond the national chains, many independent coffeehouses that people like to support. Some cities even host coffee-themed events and festivals. Moreover, of course, National Coffee Day is coming up soon, which is partly why this survey was released to coincide with it.
Jacobsen: Let us not delve too deeply into the bottom rankings, but I would like to offer a brief commentary: why is Laredo so low? It does not mean the coffee is bad, just not ranked as preferable.
Lupo: Right—it is not about the coffee being bad. It is about accessibility and economics. Laredo is a relatively low-income area with limited job opportunities and a weaker local economy. That impacts demand, and the number of coffee shops per capita is low. Prices may put coffee out of reach for some residents, and there are few coffee-related events available. Laredo is essentially a border town with Mexico, and the economics just are not conducive to coffee culture.
Jacobsen: Then we have the methodology breakdown. It is not very easy, but it makes sense—people care about coffee, so a sophisticated way to rank 100 cities is important. Why did you use a 12-factor analysis with different breakdowns? Moreover, why give double weight to metrics like coffee shops, coffee houses, and cafés per capita, as well as affordable ones rated 4.5 stars and up?
Lupo: We tried to find metrics that were essentially coffee-friendly. For the most part, they are weighted equally. However, when it comes to coffee, access and affordability are the two most significant factors. That is what people hone in on. A, is there a coffee shop close to where I live? Moreover, B, can I afford it? That is why those two factors got a little more weight.
However, you also need to consider factors such as the average price of a pack of coffee, which has increased, household spending, and the proportion of households that own their own coffee makers. In large urban areas with plenty of shops, people may not bother making coffee at home. In lower-income areas, people brew more at home to save money. However, in many places, it is both—you will have your morning cup at home and still go out for coffee on the weekends with friends.
Access and affordability remain the most significant components, which is why they are weighted higher. One other stat I found interesting—and it makes people happy—is coffee shops with free Wi-Fi per capita. Top-ranked states do well there. It is a hidden gem in the data. People are increasingly asking: if I am paying this much for coffee, will I at least get free Wi-Fi? And they should. It is the least a shop can do.
Jacobsen: Big advantage for many people. Let us close on sources. U.S. Census Bureau, Council for Community and Economic Research, U.S. Bureau of Labour Statistics, Numbeo, Google Trends, Yelp, ESRI’s updated demographics, GfK, MRI, Caffeine Crawl, Coffee Fest, and the U.S. Coffee Championships. I can immediately identify about half of those. The others I am less familiar with. Why such a broad palette of sources? Is it to make the analysis more robust?
Lupo: Exactly. Government data from the Census Bureau and the Bureau of Labour Statistics helps measure things like coffee shops per capita. Google Trends and Yelp provide insight into affordability and quality. The Council for Community and Economic Research and other nonprofits add economic context. Moreover, since this is about coffee, we also leaned on coffee-themed sources like Caffeine Crawl, Coffee Fest, and the U.S. Coffee Championships. Those provide the cultural feel and on-the-ground perspective, so the report is not just another government data survey. It brings the analysis full circle.
Jacobsen: Chip, thank you very much for your time again today. I look forward to the next one.
Lupo: Thank you so much.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/03
Charles Karel Bouley, professionally known as Karel Bouley, is a trailblazing LGBTQ broadcaster, entertainer, and activist. As half of the first openly gay duo in U.S. drive-time radio, he made history while shaping California law on LGBTQ wrongful death cases. Karel rose to prominence as the #1 talk show host on KFI AM 640 in Los Angeles and KGO AM 810 in San Francisco, later expanding to Free Speech TV and the Karel Cast podcast. His work spans journalism (HuffPost, The Advocate, Billboard), television (CNN, MSNBC), and the music industry. A voting member of NARAS, GALECA, and SAG-AFTRA, Karel now lives and creates in Las Vegas.
In this interview with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Bouley warns of escalating anti-LBGTQ rhetoric, misinformation, and political backlash, from blocked DEI grants and education crackdowns to union-busting campaigns and federal shutdown threats. Amid global struggles, he emphasizes that visibility, resilience, and economic pressure remain key tools in defending LGBTQ rights worldwide.
Interview conducted September 26, 2025.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What is new this week to start, Karel?
Karel Bouley: I posted a video on TikTok from my show, a 1-minute, 22-second video. It talked about what we discussed last week about the Pride flag possibly being declared a terrorist symbol. And Antifa—I said, look, Antifa isn’t an organization. They don’t have a central office that you can call.
So that’s a ridiculous designation, calling them a terror group. They literally stand for anti-fascist. So why would you… But then again, they said the pride flag might be a symbol of terror. Under my TikTok video, there are over a hundred comments that say, “Well, the last eight mass shootings have been by trans people.” That’s a lie.
They’re saying, “Oh, well, gays are violent and liberals are violent, and you guys are shooting everybody.” Then this one posted a thing with a swastika on one side and what the Nazis stood for—gun control, social programs, this and that. Then, there was a thing on the other side that said liberals, and it mirrored the Nazi Party. Of course, we know that’s not true. It’s far-right authoritarian movements that mirror the Nazi Party.
So, somehow, the right is perpetuating a message, and that message is sticking. It’s on all social media now and in the news that gay people, trans people, and liberals are violent, that they’re shooting people, indoctrinating children, and all of this other stuff. That message is not only sticking, it’s growing in our country. I know you’re in Canada—bless you—but our country is about to shut down our government because they can’t agree on a budget.
By the way, they haven’t passed a full budget in almost a decade. Congress hasn’t—that’s their only job, and they haven’tdone it in over ten years. All they do is fund these stopgap measures. Every three or four months, they fight over the budget, and they never pass the entire budget. It hasn’t been balanced since the 1990s.
The Democrats wanted to have a meeting with Donald Trump yesterday to try to avert a government shutdown. He has already stated that instead of laying off or furloughing people, which is the typical response, he plans to fire people, which is not typically the case. He cancelled the meeting. One of the reasons he said he cancelled it was that he didn’t want to meet with Democrats who were going to promote trans people and gay people.
He literally blamed trans people and gay people for the shutdown of the federal government because he didn’t want to meet with Democrats, thinking they were going to bring up trans and gay issues. So there is a strong narrative in America now trying to vilify not just the left, but in particular, LGBTQ people.
And it’s permeating its way down from the top into every section of society. And it’s sad, that’s what it is. Anecdotally, I got invited to a premiere with The Rock of this new movie, The Smashing Machine. UFC fighters will be there. It’s here in Vegas. They’re going to do a screening and a reception, and all these famous UFC fighters who are featured in the movie will be there.
And they emailed me again this morning and said, “Will you be attending?”
It’s time that people in the entertainment industry realize that this industry is heavily LGBTQ and yes, heavily “woke,” or left wing, and that it’s time we stop doing business with and tolerating those in the industry who speak out against key members of the industry. And so I am not going to this premiere strictly because I will not support Dwayne Johnson or the UFC.
I know the movie’s already being spoken of for Oscar contention, but I’m sorry. The battle lines are being quickly drawn, and I’m in a community which is being subjugated daily by this administration and its followers.
That’s my morning thought.
Jacobsen: We have some news items to follow up on that general thought. So, Durham County has ended Pride sponsorship. The LGBTQ Center of Durham is expecting at least 15,000 people to attend the weekend’s Pride event in downtown Durham. What are your thoughts on this?
Bouley: So, in Raleigh-Durham, North Carolina, the Pride organization is only a decade old, perhaps 15 years. North Carolina is, we’re talking about a red area. They have enjoyed a good working relationship with the city and the county: Durham Pride and the Durham Gay and Lesbian Center.
This year, they were informed that the county and the city would not be “participating.” What they mean is that they can still host their event in the city, but the town itself will not be participating in the parade, and there will be no funds or grants from the city or the county to support Pride. They cite the current political climate, and it’s unfortunate.
Unfortunately, they’re not standing up to Trump the way ABC is with Jimmy Kimmel. ABC decided to bring Kimmel back because, quite frankly, Kimmel had them over a barrel. They were impinging on his First Amendment rights. He could have sued them for wrongful termination, and they would have had to pay him a ton of money. And so they decided to put him back on the air, even though the MAGA-aligned and hateful Sinclair and Nexstar Media, which are both basically run by MAGA, have opted not to air him.
So it’s the same thing, except Durham is not standing up to Trump and to the Trump administration’s anti-DEI policies. They, like so many other counties, are caving in. To their credit, Durham and the county haven’t forced them to cancel Pride, unlike some cities.
However, while they haven’t made them cancel it, they won’t be participating in it officially. Which is sad, and that money will be missed. And of course, that sponsorship will be missed. Unfortunately, the city and county are treating those 15,000 to 20,000 people expected to attend as though they are not citizens of the area. They are.
And why the city wouldn’t want to be involved in something so significant with so many of their citizens speaks volumes to the pressure they must be getting from the Trump administration and the White House.
Jacobsen: Next item, academic-oriented. So Texas A&M has had a controversy where the state is now at the center of a fight over LGBTQ teachings. Some have posed this as academics losing their freedom of speech rights. Basically, at least one college in the state is trying to preemptively avoid political fire by banning LGBTQ discussions in classrooms.
Brian Evans, president of the Texas Conference of the American Association of University Professors, stated, “It’sdifficult to see because it creates a chilling effect for other faculty. You want to ensure that students have the freedom to discuss topics that interest them. So to have to play censorship—that certain topics can’t be taught in class, especially those that are related to the class—seems a little bit strange, because students want to ask questions, want to explore ideas.”
Bouley: Here we have a time where they want to erect Charlie Kirk monuments on university campuses. And yet, gay and lesbian topics are being banned. Isn’t it something that Charlie was all about free speech? So what happened was, a teacher was giving a lecture about, I believe, LGBTQ teachings and children—that was sort of the topic of the lecture.
And they were discussing something about a “gender unicorn.” It was unclear in the article what the actual lesson plan entailed, but I believe it focused on gender identity, based on what I could gather. And as they were discussing this gender identity book—a children’s book where a non-binary character saves the universe kind of thing—as they were discussing that, a student in class said, “I don’t think we should be having this discussion. It’s illegal.”
The teacher, the professor, had words with the student, basically. And the student still objected. The teacher said, Well, if you don’t like it, you’re free to leave. Of course, that escalated. Now, I believe the president of that university has resigned, or someone involved with the university has resigned.
And now you see that another university has decided not to teach it, presumably to avoid this kind of trouble. We often discuss, and I’ve mentioned to you frequently, what these stories look like in the real world. This is what it looks like in the real world. You now have college professors who, historically—I don’t know about you, but I had some unconventional college professors with unconventional ideas.
And I thought that they were hitting the pipe or something. How did you get your PhD? But college is the place for that. It’s the place for all these bizarre ideas to come together and for students to form their own opinions about what they believe. That’s what college is—one of the primary purposes it serves. And now you have college professors worrying about whether they can talk about a subject that is human and as old as time, which is LGBTQ issues.
And so this is what anti-DEI policies mean. When I gave you the list of legislation last week regarding all the pending bills related to schools and what teachers can and cannot say, this is how it plays out. And it’s not pretty.
There is collateral damage. People lose careers. People lose jobs. Ultimately, the students are no better off for it. The students at this particular university will not be better off because their education is no longer well-rounded. It is censored. Censorship does not lead to a well-rounded education. It leads to indoctrination.
So while the right says that teaching LGBTQ issues such as this in school is indoctrination, what they actually want to do is indoctrinate others into their belief that discussing these issues is wrong. So we have an ideological war going on, and this is one of the battle lines—this university. As you see, it has cost someone their job, and it has cost another university the opportunity to censor completely.
Will this end up in court? I don’t know. Will the teacher or the student sue? I don’t know. There’s been no litigation as of yet. However, it is indeed chilling because this is how it ultimately plays out. And if other universities cave in because they don’t want the hassle, then suddenly things like LGBTQ studies are taken out of college. Well, if a college kid can’thandle learning about gay people, they shouldn’t be in college.
They should be in a monastery where they can have sex with young boys. But so it’s chilling. It is Texas. This isn’thappening at a university in California, Washington, or Utah, but that being said, it may still occur. And I’m sure many collegiate leaders are watching what happens with this in Texas. To see how they should proceed.
Jacobsen: Also in the news, the LGBTQ youth population has doubled. The number of bills targeting them has tripled. So new research is out: LGBTQ young people live in 27 states where a swell of new laws restrict their in-school rights. So what’s happening in school? Is this reflected in out-of-school life as well?
Bouley: Yes, it is. It’s rough to be a gay kid in those 27 states. It always has been. Although there are more of them now, it’s still challenging. I lived in one and told my parents to get me the fuck out. We lived in Texas, and I said, Please take me to California. I was in sixth grade, and I thought, I’m a little different, and I’ve got to go. So yes, first of all, the good news.
More young people are feeling free enough and able enough to identify as something other than straight. That’s incredible. It’s not that we suddenly created or doubled the number of gay people. That’s not what happened here. What happened is that children—these young kids, which to me is anyone under 30 nowadays—felt comfortable enough to come out as something other than straight.
“Straight plus,” I hear, is a thing these days. I’m not sure what that means, but they seem comfortable with us. So that’s the good news. The headline is misleading. I want to speak to the author, because the number of LGBTQ youth has not doubled. It’s the number of youth who identify as LGBTQ that has doubled. And that’s because they feel more comfortable. They see more representation.
Online, on social media—where most of them are—they see more open LGBTQ people. So they feel more comfortable identifying. The bad news for them is that they’re in the 27 states that hate them. And that hatred is being reflected in the more than 300 pieces of legislation pending in those states to harm them in school.
What I mean by ‘harm’ is not allowing them to be represented, not enabling them to see themselves in the curriculum, andnot including them in the discussion. So now you’ll have schools that have twice as many children identifying as LGBTQIA+, and yet you won’t have any classes that address or represent them. That’s sad because they’re not going away. They are students. They deserve a curriculum that is inclusive of them.
And MAGA is trying to push them back into their closets by not letting them be represented in the curriculum. That leads to homophobia. That leads to other kids at school picking on them. That leads to bullying. We have a state representative—or maybe he’s a member of Congress, I’d have to look this story up—but he’s fighting for the “right” for schools to have anti-gay groups.
He said, since schools are allowed to have pro-gay groups, they should also be allowed to have anti-gay groups. That’slike saying if you have a pro-person-of-colour group, you should let the Klan have a rally on campus. It’s ludicrous thinking, but this is where their mind is at. Again, I go back to this: the doubled number of gay kids now—they are their parents’ children, and they are tax-paying, economic supporters of whatever community they’re in.
They pay taxes for those schools to exist, and they deserve for their children to have an inclusive curriculum. So when you hear this—that the number of people who identify has doubled and yet the legislation against them has tripled—youhave to sort of say to MAGA, your bigotry isn’t working. You’ve been on this anti-gay trip forever, my whole life.
And yet more people now are feeling free to identify as gay than ever before. So your pact isn’t working, maybe youshould reevaluate. But that’s not what they do. They have an agenda. This is their agenda. They don’t care if they hurt kids. They don’t care if they deprive kids of a well-rounded education. They don’t care if they cause kids social issues or social problems. They have their agenda. And that’s sad.
Jacobsen: There’s been $1.25 million blocked in LGBTQ DEI grants. This may violate federal law. So it’s being raised as a separate issue.
Bouley: Of course it does. Yeah, of course it does. What happened was—and what Trump is known for doing is—so we know here in Washington who controls the purse strings: Congress.
I don’t know who in Canada has the purse strings. It’s your Parliament, or the body that approves all the national spending for the country. I’m not sure how that works there—if your municipalities do it or if you’re sovereign, how you handle it. I’m not sure if there’s a single body that oversees funding for Quebec, Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver, or if that responsibility is divided among different entities. I’m not sure if your Prime Minister and his Parliament do that. But here in our country, Congress, if the agencies fully approve funds they’re coming from, and all of a sudden that money isn’tthere, that’s a problem. We’re talking about a piss-poor amount of money. It’s $1.25 million. That’s less than 0.00001% of the U.S. budget. He stopped it for no other reason than he’s a homophobe. You know, Project 2025.
So, yes, it does violate federal law because if Congress has allocated the funds, the House and Senate have already approved them, and the procedure has been followed, the president has no right to step in and stop the funding. But he did. Therefore, the recipients of the grants will now have to file a federal lawsuit, or someone—the ACLU or another entity—will have to file a lawsuit to try to get that money released. What those agencies are supposed to do in the meantime, who knows?
Jacobsen: Now this one is exciting. It’s from The Advocate about former member Ryan Walters. This has apparently been a long fight, but he publicly resigned and then declared himself the CEO of Teacher Freedom Alliance, a conservative nonprofit. He said, “We’re going to destroy the teachers’ unions… We have seen teachers’ unions use their financial resources and influence to corrupt our schools and undermine them. We will build an army of teachers to defeat the teachers’ unions once and for all.” Any thoughts?
Bouley: Well, first of all, fuck him. Second, unions are not the enemy. Almost every significant achievement for American workers has been accomplished through unions. I am a proud member of SAG-AFTRA, which is a union. It’spart of the AFL-CIO. As a member of SAG-AFTRA for over 30 years, I can attest that it has greatly benefited my career, ensuring that I’m not taken advantage of as an entertainer. Teachers’ unions play a vital role in protecting our teachers and their rights.
It’s vital. And he’s mad because the teachers’ union took him to task, showed him to be ridiculous, and won. So he’s angry. Trump is prosecuting James Comey out of nothing but the desire for retribution—it’s revenge. All he wants to do is take revenge on the people who overrode his bigoted agenda. It has nothing to do with providing students with a better education.
I challenge him, and I challenge every person who might agree with him, to list the corruption of the teachers’ union. These are teachers who take crap salaries—most of them very underpaid—who often have to buy books and supplies for their students because the federal government doesn’t, and the parents don’t have the money. They put in long hours, are subject to in-class attacks from students—which are on the rise across the board—and now have to navigate politically sensitive waters when it comes to what they teach their students.
And yet they still get up every morning and go to work. And they have assholes like him trying to fight against them, while they’re doing this job for $40K, $50K, $60K a year. Not one teacher in America makes what one congressman makes. A congressman works 173 days out of the year and makes $165,000 a year. Teachers’ average annual salary is $69,000.
This guy’s going to come after the unions that protect what little rights and benefits teachers have because he thinks they’re corrupt and promoting some agenda that he disagrees with? I’m glad he resigned. I’m so happy there was pressure for him to resign. Good luck with his mission to break up the teachers’ union. It won’t be effective.
Jacobsen: Also from The Advocate: Donald Trump has blamed transgender rights for a looming government shutdown.
Bouley: He had a meeting with the Democrats—the high-ranking Democrats, Schumer and others—who were going to go in and try to reach a compromise on the budget, so we don’t shut down the government because shutting down the government happens in tiers.
So there’s the first level—what happens and who is furloughed, which Trump now says he’ll fire. Then the second level, when that money runs out. Then the third level. Ultimately, I’ve lived through shutdowns that have lasted over a hundred days. Our national parks and national monuments close because they are federally funded, and the government doesn’tpay the workers. So ultimately, it is not suitable for America because the work of America isn’t being done.
So the Democrats wanted to go in and try to avoid this. One of the issues the Democrats are focusing on is healthcare. If the Democrats lose this fight, the Obamacare healthcare insurance that people get is going to triple, and it’s already expensive. If you’re paying $700 a month, you’ll be paying $2,100 a month, and I don’t know who can do that.
They’re also trying to protect Medicaid in some states, where if it goes away, rural hospitals and clinics will close. So they wanted to go in and meet with the president to say, ‘Can we come up with an agreement that will keep healthcare funded, but also give you a compromise?’ He cancelled the meeting because he didn’t want to hear about “trans issues” and giving everybody surgeries. He said all the Democrats want to do is fund gender surgery for everybody.
Those were his words. We’re all standing in line waiting to have it whacked off. I’m not. I enjoy being a man. I get big breasts sometimes when I get overweight, but I don’t need them. And I’m happy with my penis. So we’re not all waiting to have gender reassignment surgery, unlike what the president thinks. But the notion that a seated president—
Would cancel a meeting with high-ranking Democrats to try to avert a government shutdown—which affects all people—based on his dislike of trans people, gender-affirming care, and the LGBTQ community. That should be impeachable, in my opinion. But it shows how petty he is that he’s willing to shut down the government and harm all of the country so he can make a point about how anti-gay and anti-trans he is.
And so we’ll see what happens. As it looks now, the shutdown deadline is looming. It always happens in October. Always, always, always. And we’ve had shutdowns through to Christmas before. So we’ll see. Personally—I say personally—I say shut the fucking thing down. Shut all the government down, defund it all, and send everybody home. It isn’t working. So send them all home. But the notion that he would blame gay and trans people for cancelling a meeting with key Democrats about the budget shows how insane he is.
Jacobsen: Two other pieces of news. This is more international, at the current local level with UNGA 80. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Türk, delivered a speech on the UN LGBTI Core Group at the high-level event “We the Peoples” at UNGA 80: “LGBTI Youth and the Future.”
Basically, giving a standard speech of “everyone should be included.” There is diversity of people, sexualities, and gender identities, and youth are targeted, so we need to make sure that we protect them. He also emphasized that more than 60 countries still criminalize consensual same-sex relations, and many criminalize transgender people. Hate speech and discrimination are running rampant around the world.
In Europe, 70% of 15- to 17-year-olds identifying as LGBTIQ+ report harassment at school. Across Africa, Asia, Europe, and North America, LGBTIQ+ youth are disproportionately affected by homelessness, rejection, and bullying. So for those who enter events at UNGA 80—this high-level event or side events—interactive in their communities, they’re going to experience higher levels of rejection and bullying and so on.
What are your thoughts on this critical reiteration by Türk?
Bouley: Well, afterwards, we all joined hands and sang We Are Family. First of all—good. I am glad there are sane voices. I read his speech. I am so happy there are sane voices out there. The problem is that America is exporting its hatred. Republicans for a decade now have been financing and sending representatives to these countries—particularly African nations and Latin American nations—to get their leaders to make anti-gay bills.
So our American MAGA is going to other countries and funding anti-gay organizations. It is an international effort to criminalize or delegitimize LGBTQIA people. It is a shame that in 2025, as I sit here at 62 years old, we are still having these conversations—that 60 countries still outlaw this, that trans people are still being murdered across the board, that there is an open concentration camp in Chechnya for gay people.
Sad. It’s nice that he said it. He was preaching to the choir. It would be more important and influential for people like him to travel to these 60 countries and deliver these speeches. Because he’s right—bullying against gay youth is up all over the world, including the United States. And about his speech—how do I say this? He illustrated the problem perfectly, but he didn’t give solutions, real-world solutions. How do we turn the tide the other way?
I was intrigued and happy that someone was making such a speech, particularly a high-ranking person from the world community, but I wanted to hear more about the steps being taken to protect these youth. What steps are being taken to reverse these anti-gay policies in the 60 countries? The United Nations, which is in the spotlight this week, needs to do a much better job of prioritizing.
And one of the things we discussed yesterday at our Grammy meeting for Music Advocacy Day with our state representative was how one way to influence countries to do things is to attach it to other initiatives. You say to that country, okay, if you want to do trade with us, which is a significant source of your income, you’re going to have to lighten up on X, Y, Z. We need the world nations that are tolerant and inclusive to start economically pressuring these other countries that are not. Because the only way they’re going to change is through financial threat. They’re not going to do it out of the goodness of their heart.
But if you say to an African nation, “You can make an extra $4 billion a year in sales of XYZ to our country, but we’re not going to do business with a country that punishes gay people,” that will change the policy. So I didn’t hear him discuss ways such as economic pressure from inclusive nations against those that aren’t. That’s what we need. We need someone to come forward with a framework and say, Here’s the framework for how we get them to change their policies.
And so far, no country has done that. I’d love for the UN to do that—to come forward and say, “You can’t even be a member nation of the UN if you don’t include LGBTQ rights in your platform.” But again, given the mood, and that America sets the tone and we’re exporting our hatred, I don’t see those 60 countries changing. I don’t see those gay youth being less bullied. I see it increasing. Trans people are becoming less safe every day.
So, it’s nice to hear the speech again. Great that positivity is out there. Great that people are looking at the problem. Butinstead of looking—we’ve been examining this problem for a long time—let’s solve it. Let’s find fundamental ways, even tough-love ways, to solve this problem because kids are being hurt.
Jacobsen: So, given that, thank you for the opportunity and your time, Karel.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/03
Riane Eisler, an Austrian-born American systems scientist, futurist, and human rights advocate, is renowned for her influential work on cultural transformation and gender equity. Best known for “The Chalice and the Blade,” she introduced the partnership versus dominator models of social organization. She received the Humanist Pioneer Award, and in conversation with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Eisler emphasized the urgent need for humanists to focus on values-based systems and the transformative power of caring economics. Drawing on neuroscience and history, she argues that peace begins at home and calls for a shift in worldview to build more equitable, sustainable, and compassionate societies rooted in connection rather than control. The three books of hers of note that could be highlighted are The Chalice and the Blade—now in its 57th U.S. printing with 30 foreign editions, The Real Wealth of Nations, and Nurturing Our Humanity: How Domination and Partnership Shape Our Brains, Lives, and Future (Oxford University Press, 2019).
In this interview with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Eisler argues that domination persists through rigid gender roles, early socialization, skewed economics, and mythic narratives. Her partnership model centers four cornerstones—childhood and family, gender, economics, and story/language—shaping minds, policies, and culture. She critiques religious and secular dogmas while noting that faith and science can support partnership. Eisler emphasizes caring economics, hierarchies of actualization, and empathy that extends beyond in-groups. Examples include Nordic policies, Ireland’s shift, archaeological hints of egalitarian prehistory, and linguistic change. She warns that domination is maladaptive in the face of nuclear and climate risks, urging systemic reform. The Peace Begins at Home Summit highlights early caregiving as a vital infrastructure and encourages collaboration toward partnership.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Once again, we are here with the prolific and internationally distinguished Riane Eisler, founder of Partnership Studies. This is part eight of our series. Today, the focus, based on our preset plan from several weeks ago, is gender, childhood stories, and language within partnerships. This promises to be a fascinating discussion because, as you have often noted, domination models in many societies neglect more than half of the world’s population—women and children, both boys and girls. How do you connect the social construction of gender roles to the persistence of domination systems, not just as a model but as systems embedded in society?
Riane Eisler: We have been conditioned to think of gender as simply a woman’s issue. Later, it was also framed as a men’s issue. In reality, gender encompasses everyone, including people who do not fit neatly into binary categories—gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and other identities—which have always existed, despite being marginalized.
Gender roles are not peripheral matters; they are central to how families, economies, education, and societies are organized. Those pushing for a return to rigid domination systems—more authoritarian, male-dominated orders, with extreme inequality between haves and have-nots—place heavy emphasis on gender. Domination systems are built on rigid stereotypes of “masculine” and “feminine,” leaving no legitimate space for anything in between.
In the United States, we see ongoing attempts to impose policies that legally recognize only two sexes. These efforts are tied to reinforcing male dominance. Ranking men and masculinity over women, girls, and femininity is only possible if rigid stereotypes are first enforced; otherwise, there is no clear basis for hierarchy.
This plays out in economic policy. There is consistent funding for stereotypically “masculine” priorities—war, domination, and violence—yet insufficient support for stereotypically “feminine” responsibilities such as childcare, education, and caregiving. Moreover, because there is now a growing movement toward caring policies, emphasizing investment in families and social well-being, those who cling to domination models perceive this as a direct threat. That has triggered the backlash we are witnessing today.
These traits are considered “feminine,” and domination systems insist on reinstating rigid gender stereotypes. Difference itself is equated with superiority and inferiority, dominating or being dominated, serving or being served.
That logic extends to all forms of difference: racism, antisemitism, all in-group versus out-group thinking and behaviour.
Jacobsen: We internalize these patterns early, through parental modelling and, in a way, through mentoring. How does this shape childhood experience? Moreover, how do those childhood experiences then shape society when these children grow into adults?
Eisler: Findings from neuroscience are obvious. What children observe or experience—especially in the first five years, but really throughout their upbringing, which occurs mainly in families—has a profound impact. If children see that what women and girls are and do is devalued in domination systems—caring, caregiving, nonviolence, and so forth—they absorb that. Girls are socialized for it, but this is not an issue of women against men. It is a human issue. Many women support domination because it is deeply ingrained in their brains.
If children see this devaluation, they internalize it. It shapes how they think, feel, act—including how they vote, when they have the opportunity.
Why do human beings often defend their chains? I mean the unseen chains of tradition and hierarchy. People defend them, polish them, even protect them. That is what we must understand and overcome.
The answer lies in what I call the four cornerstones that underlie both domination-oriented and partnership-oriented systems—always a matter of degree. First is childhood and family. In our conventional categories, where do children and families appear? Nowhere. Second is gender: how gender roles and relations are structured. That is fundamental.
Moreover, yes, in fundamentalist religious frameworks, gender inequality is justified as “God’s will,” where women are told they must be men’s helpers and subordinate. Third is economics. Both socialism and capitalism, as I discuss in my book The Real Wealth of Nations: Creating a Caring Economics, perpetuate gendered systems of value. There is always money for the “masculine”—control, violence, weaponry—but somehow not enough for the “feminine” work of care.
The fourth cornerstone is story and language. All four—childhood, gender, economics, and story/language—are interconnected, and they profoundly shape how we think, feel, and act. In domination systems, they all reinforce in-group versus out-group domination.
Superiority, inferiority, and related hierarchies bring me to what I would like to leave as my legacy. Yes, we must put out the immediate fires, but domination systems are trauma factories—there will always be new fires as long as the system persists. At the same time, we must address the four cornerstones, whichever speaks to us most directly.
There is the women’s movement, the children’s rights movement, the anti-racism movement—each is part of the same larger shift toward partnership, challenging traditions of domination. The backlash we see today is a reaction to these partnership-oriented movements, which have accelerated over the past three centuries, especially as the Industrial Revolution disrupted old patterns. What once seemed immutable no longer was.
During this period, movements for economic justice, peace, abolition of slavery, women’s rights, and, more recently, children’s rights gained momentum. The environmental movement also arose, challenging the dominant tradition that claimed humans—particularly men—were divinely ordained to dominate the earth and everything that lives on it.
Jacobsen: That tradition, again, is supported by stories and myths. What about those?
Eisler: We all live in stories, whether we realize it or not. Take, for example, the stories told about human nature: original sin or selfish genes. Different language, same message—we are bad and must be rigidly controlled from above, whether by a fearful God or by rigid social hierarchies. Domination systems inculcate fear. Of course, there are natural fears—illness, death, earthquakes—but domination systems focus on instilling human-created fear: the fear of punishment, the fear of authority, the fear of stepping outside rigid rankings.
Jacobsen: There is a hidden premise here worth clarifying. What about secular dogmas—often political ideologies—that function as dogmas in much the same way as religious or divinely ordained hierarchies? Do they play a similar role in imposing domination?
Eisler: First, it is important to emphasize that faith itself is not the problem. Many people hold faith in transcendent realities and do not subscribe to domination systems. To target faith as the root issue is too simplistic. Remember, science itself, until well into the nineteenth century, upheld domination myths. For example, the scientific consensus of the time claimed women contributed nothing biologically to reproduction; they were just containers.
For centuries, scientific dogma held that men alone passed on their genes. Women were thought to be merely containers. Historian David Noble, in his book A World Without Women, describes how modern science began in a monastic, clerical, celibate, and deeply misogynist context. Moreover, I would add—it was not only a world without women. It was also a world without children.
It was a world rooted in domination: the “God-fearing” model replicated in hierarchical religions, where authority is enforced through obedience. So it is not faith in itself, nor science in itself. The real struggle is between partnership and domination. We see this conflict across movements challenging traditions of domination and against the backlash that seeks regression.
Think about it: in domination systems, authoritarian families and authoritarian states mirror each other. Gender ranking is central. Violence and abuse are built into the structure, reinforced by story and language. These are stories rooted in fear of punishment. Look at our fairy tales: only a prince can save Cinderella or Sleeping Beauty. Such tales teach gender roles, but also something subtler—that only those on top can save us, usually from the very dangers they embody.
We must change our worldview. The traditions of domination need to be left behind. We must distinguish between hierarchies of domination and hierarchies of actualization. Every society needs parents, teachers, managers, and leaders, but power can be understood in different ways. Not “power over,” but “power with” and “power to”—including our creative power.
Archaeology increasingly shows evidence of prehistoric societies oriented toward partnership: more gender-balanced, more equitable, more peaceful. For example, Chinese archaeologists recently excavated a matrilineal society that was more egalitarian. Reports even appeared in mainstream outlets like The Wall Street Journal. However, we receive these findings only in fragments, and without the frame of partnership versus domination, the larger pattern remains invisible. Without that shift in framing, we will continue fighting for scraps falling from the tables of those at the top.
What we need is a change in what we institutionally value.
Jacobsen: What about the metaphors of war and conquest? Domination systems seem to glorify them, whether through heroic tales of warriors or through demonizing villains.
Eisler: It is always simplified into “good versus evil,” resolved through violence. Even our judicial system carries traces of this; trial by combat has only been replaced with a ritualized version in court. As an attorney, I can attest to that.
The whole judicial system is set up to be adversarial. Before I left the law, I practiced family law. If someone had set out to invent the worst possible system for dissolving or restructuring a family—especially one with children—it would be this adversarial approach.
I introduced fair prenuptial agreements and mediation as alternatives, but this was in the 1970s. Much has changed since then, including my decision to leave that profession. Still, my legal training was helpful because it gave me a systematic way of thinking. Clients do not come into your office and ask you to apply section 1222 of the penal code; they tell you a story, and your job is to translate that story into applicable law. That is systems thinking.
Earlier, right out of college, I worked for an offshoot of the RAND Corporation. There, I learned about systems thinking from the start. That perspective has shaped my research. It considers all of humanity—both its female and male halves, and everyone in between. It encompasses the intimate relationships within families, as well as political relationships. It connects the dots, and it includes all of history, even prehistory.
The shift to domination happened very recently in evolutionary terms—only about five to ten thousand years ago, after millennia of more partnership-oriented societies. So yes, we can move back toward partnership. Not to return to some “good old days,” but to build something new while still in motion, like flying the plane while we are building it.
The key is to focus on the four cornerstones that underlie both domination-oriented and partnership-oriented systems. First, childhood and family: neuroscience shows us how critical early experiences are. Second, gender: we know how roles are structured and the consequences. Third, economics: here too, the evidence is clear. Neoliberalism, which is neither new nor liberal, is simply a form of economic domination. Like feudalism, it tells those at the bottom to be satisfied with scraps falling from the tables of those at the top; moreover, fourth, story and language: the narratives that shape culture and justify hierarchy.
We are highlighting these issues in the upcoming Peace Begins at Home Summit, taking place on October 29, 2025, at peacebeginsathomesummit.org. The summit will bring together participants from seventeen nations, including many young people and scientists, to emphasize the importance of paying close attention to what children observe and experience in their early years. The good news is that change is possible. Our brains are highly flexible.
All of this is bombarding us, and yet we lack the frame to connect the dots. There is an alternative, even in language. Think of how domination systems devalue the feminine through grammar. Romance languages—Spanish, Italian, French—default to the masculine in the plural. One man among five thousand women, and the group is still masculine. If that is not an unconscious lesson in devaluing the feminine, I do not know what is.
English has started to shift. The use of “they,” the conscious inclusion of “her” and “him”—these are small steps. However, they are emerging against the backdrop of a highly organized, worldwide regression toward domination. This is not confined to the United States. Moreover, for those socialized to believe the only alternative is domination—a lie, of course—change is tough. Transformative change seems almost impossible.
My late husband and our colleague David Loye introduced the terms norm maintainers and norm changers. Most people fall somewhere in between, and they adapt to whatever the prevailing norm is. If the norm is domination, they go along with that. This makes it all the more crucial that we pay attention to what we value.
Everyone values caring and connection. As children, we cannot survive without it. However, domination systems restrict empathy to the in-group, and even then, only to those who conform rigidly. That is not sustainable. The bottom line—and I will say it again and again—is that domination systems are taking us to an evolutionary dead end.
We are interconnected not only by technologies of communication and transportation, but also by technologies of destruction—nuclear weapons, and more slowly, climate change. Domination systems cannot address these crises. Domination of nature, of other humans, of families, of economies—it is built into their logic. At this stage of human technological evolution, domination is maladaptive. Whether the threat is nuclear catastrophe or ecological collapse, the trajectory is the same: an evolutionary dead end.
So either we move further toward partnership, or it is curtains.
Jacobsen: What cultivates empathy in children? They must see empathy in action, and not just within the in-group. Domination systems limit empathy to the in-group and only to select members. Partnership systems, by contrast, extend empathy universally.
Eisler: In domination systems, children are taught to blame and shame. Partnership systems are not about blame or shame—certainly not about blaming our parents. They repeated what they themselves experienced and were taught. However, there is another way. Many young people today, including young men, are diapering and feeding babies, engaging in caregiving once dismissed as “women’s work.” This is very important.
I have always supported both the men’s movement and the women’s movement. I am a feminist, yes, but also a humanist and, above all, a partnerist. Because the alternative to patriarchy is not matriarchy; it is partnership. Prehistory and contemporary examples both show this.
Look at Ireland, which shifted almost overnight from rigid domination to partnership. There, you see both men and women in positions of leadership. In the Nordic nations, nearly half of the national legislatures are comprised of female members, and with that comes a focus on caring policies. These nations are not socialist, as some critics argue—they are partnership-oriented.
We need a new language. We need a new frame: the partnership-domination scale. Believe me, those pushing us back have a very rigid domination frame, and they are laser-focused on childhood and family. Consider the intense political attention given to controlling what children can learn, even to the point of banning ideas that might open their eyes to reality. This does not mean ignoring the good in American history—the founding rejection of monarchy was groundbreaking. However, we must also acknowledge the harm caused by the dominant heritage and the suffering it has produced.
Those pushing regression also pay careful attention to gender, as you noted with your imitation of U.S. politics. They pay enormous attention to economics—the new tax bills being celebrated as “beautiful” are written to favour domination structures.
I must say something about our present administration and President Trump. This is a deeply traumatized man, surrounded by deeply traumatized people, all shaped by domination in their families. They internalized a worldview that, as Trump himself put it, is all about domination. So the challenge is not to shame or blame them, but to understand that this was the only possibility they were given. The task is to convince the rest of the population that there is another way.
Our task now is to show that there is a better alternative. The partnership alternative requires shifting the four cornerstones—family and childhood, gender, economics, and story and language—from domination support to partnership support.
Jacobsen: What else should we cover?
Eisler: We have covered nearly everything. The narrative is key. Every one of us must pay attention to the lies we have been told about human nature. This is not a science-versus-religion issue. In fact, science is moving toward partnership. Two physicists recently won the Nobel Prize for their work on quantum entanglement—research showing deep interconnection at the subatomic level. Archaeology, too, is shifting, as I mentioned in relation to the Chinese findings.
There is even a film being made about me—The Chalice and the Blade—about my life and work, which are deeply interconnected. I am living proof that people can change radically. My partnership with David Loye, my late husband, was central to that. We were together for forty-five years. It was not perfect—we fought—but we always reconciled. We could rely on one another, on acceptance, love, and care. Partnership is not only essential for survival, but for thriving. I could not have done my research without him.
Jacobsen: Last question: how can scholars, writers, and educators consciously shape partnership narratives without them feeling contrived?
Eisler: The first step is to live in partnership in our own lives. When a caring connection is authentic, it will not come across as artificial. Forgiveness also plays a role. It helps to understand that people who cling to dominant traditions are often traumatized. Recognizing that makes forgiveness freeing.
I will add one more thing: many on the left believe that if they can be on top, everything will be fine. However, that is not true. Look at the former Soviet Union: the “dictatorship of the proletariat,” state capitalism—it was still domination. The fundamental shift is from hierarchies of domination to hierarchies of actualization and care. What has been dismissed as “feminine” activity—caring, nurturing—is actually the essence of being human. Deep down, we all value that.
Jacobsen: Riane, thank you very much for your time again today. I will see you next week, and as always.
Eisler: You are lovely. Take good care of yourself, my friend. Bye-bye.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/02
Irina Tsukerman is a human rights and national security attorney based in New York and Connecticut. She earned her Bachelor of Arts in National and Intercultural Studies and Middle East Studies from Fordham University in 2006, followed by a Juris Doctor from Fordham University School of Law in 2009. She operates a boutique national security law practice. She serves as President of Scarab Rising, Inc., a media and security strategic advisory firm. Additionally, she is the Editor-in-Chief of The Washington Outsider, which focuses on foreign policy, geopolitics, security, and human rights. She is actively involved in several professional organizations, including the American Bar Association’s Energy, Environment, and Science and Technology Sections, where she serves as Program Vice Chair in the Oil and Gas Committee. She is also a member of the New York City Bar Association. She serves on the Middle East and North Africa Affairs Committee and affiliates with the Foreign and Comparative Law Committee.
In this interview with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, she outlines Nepal’s youth-led protests, mounting death tolls, arson, mass prison breaks, border spillovers, and leadership change from K.P. Sharma Oli to interim prime minister Sushila Karki, urging caution with unconfirmed reports and foreign-influence claims. She welcomes new WHO guidance on diabetes and albinism, linking health, education, and protection. In Egypt, she reads morality-law prosecutions as a distraction and factional power play amid economic strain. In Nigeria’s Niger Delta, she warns accountability often lags where governments are complicit.
Interview conducted September 12.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today’s sources include Amnesty International, Reuters, the UN system’s press reporting, AP, and major regional outlets. In Nepal, there is an active push for accountability after a deadly crackdown on youth-led (“Gen Z”) protests that erupted in early September 2025. Amnesty International called for an independent investigation on September 8, initially citing at least 19 dead and more than 100 injured.
The protests were driven by anger over corruption and a short-lived government order that banned 26 social-media platforms (among them LinkedIn and Signal). The ban itself became a flashpoint and helped swell the crowds.
The death toll rose as the week went on: AP reported at least 51 dead after curfews were lifted and calm started to return; Nepal’s Health Ministry then raised the count to 72, according to Reuters, with more than 2,100 injured.
Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli resigned amid the unrest. Former Chief Justice Sushila Karki was sworn in as interim prime minister—the first woman to hold the post—tasked with stabilizing the country and preparing for elections. Reuters reports she has pledged transparency and jobs-focused reforms; AP also notes compensation and medical support commitments for victims. Any thoughts?
Irina Tsukerman: During the chaos, coordinated prison breaks occurred nationwide. Reports from Nepali and international outlets indicate roughly 13,000–15,000 inmates escaped from more than two dozen facilities; thousands remain at large, while authorities have recaptured several thousand. Some escapees were intercepted along the India–Nepal border.
There were severe arson attacks on public buildings and private residences. Multiple outlets reported that the house of former Prime Minister Jhala Nath Khanal was set ablaze. Several Indian and Nepali outlets said his wife, Rajyalaxmi Chitrakar, died of burn injuries; at least one fact-check later said she was alive and recovering. Due to conflicting reports, this detail should be considered unconfirmed until an authoritative update is provided.
Regional spillovers are tangible: Indian border forces have detained escapees crossing rivers into Uttarakhand, and Kathmandu’s airport and key government sites were attacked or shut temporarily during the peak of unrest.
Claims that the movement was directed by “foreign malign influencers,” organized crime, or a coordinated royalist–Maoist front are not substantiated in the mainstream reporting above; I have removed them. There were separate, earlier 2025 pro-monarchy mobilizations in Nepal, but that is distinct from the September anti-corruption protests and should not be conflated.
Jacobsen: The World Health Organization has issued new guidelines. It looks like a big win, actually—addressing both people with albinism and people with diabetes. One is probably less updated, the other more urgent, but both are serious.
Tsukerman: Diabetes has been a growing problem worldwide, especially in the Middle East, partly due to dietary issues.
For the first time, data now show that children are suffering more from obesity than from undernourishment. So the guidelines emphasize health advice related to diet, exercise, stress management, and other contributing factors, as well as genetic complications that can lead to more children being born with diabetes.
The albinism part is less intuitive at first glance. Albinism is a relatively rare genetic condition, and in Western contexts, it is not typically viewed as a significant public health issue. But in some African countries, there have been literal witch hunts targeting people with albinism. In Tanzania and elsewhere, deep-rooted superstitions and disinformation surround this condition. Some individuals with albinism are treated as supernatural beings, viewed with suspicion, or, in the most horrifying cases, hunted.
There is a belief in specific regions that the body parts or blood of people with albinism can be used in rituals to cure illnesses, remove hexes, or provide magical protection. These superstitions, fueled by poverty, lack of education, and the spread of unchecked misinformation on social media, make individuals with albinism extremely vulnerable.
Because of this, people with albinism often face severe discrimination. At best, they may be ostracized, harassed, or bullied. At worst, they may be murdered and used in occult rituals to advance the goals of witchcraft-oriented groups.
It is terrifying, and governments in affected countries have limited resources to fight these beliefs. Weak governance, poor education systems, poverty, unemployment, social instability, and high crime rates all prevent intense action. The WHO’s guidelines are likely aimed at providing basic public education to counter superstition and protect vulnerable people.
Even though albinism is rare, persecution is systematic and widespread enough to demand international attention. It stems from complete misunderstanding of genetics and mutations, and it has left people with albinism among the most at-risk groups in parts of Africa.
Jacobsen: There has been a mass crackdown on online content creators in Egypt. Prosecutors are charging them under the pretext of violating “family values” and “public morals.” Mir Madi, Senior Middle East Researcher at Human Rights Watch, stated: “Egyptian authorities’ campaign against online content creators seems intended to quell the last vestiges of space for free expression in the country… This is part of the government’s relentless attempt to criminalize all forms of expression that do not conform to its political or social views.”
The criminal charges are being brought under Article 25 of Law No. 175 (2018) on cybercrime, which cites “violating family principles or values in Egyptian society.” Punishments range from six months to three years in prison, plus hefty fines, which are hefty relative to Egyptian income levels.
Tsukerman: It is not a coincidence that this crackdown began now. The Egyptian economy has been in crisis for years. While there has been modest growth recently, most of the population still struggles. At the same time, upheavals and demonstrations related to Gaza have increased pressure. Pro–Muslim Brotherhood groups have been demonstrating at Egyptian embassies abroad, accusing Egypt of not doing enough to support Gaza.
Inside Egypt, political tensions have intensified. Various groups are seizing on economic grievances to push their own agendas, hoping to destabilize the government and bring themselves to power. Analysts have even warned of a potential “new Arab Spring,” once again rooted in economic discontent but linked with broader political goals.
This crackdown serves multiple purposes. First, it diverts attention away from issues the government cannot easily manage. Second, it reflects the rising influence of conservative elements within the state. These groups, after a period of relative liberalization, now feel more powerful and are demanding greater influence in policymaking—including tighter control over “morals.”
Whenever we see moral panics like this—fixation on “family values” and “public morals”—it usually signals two things: (a) the ascendance of fundamentalist groups and (b) a deliberate distraction from more damaging crises facing the government.
Simply calling for the release of detainees is not enough. Some have already been released on bail. In the long run, many of these cases may not go anywhere. They are meant to generate headlines and reinforce the image of moral guardianship. At the same time, factions within the government may be pursuing their own conservative agendas, exploiting instability for leverage.
There are tensions with President Sisi over his support for the Coptic community, which has angered stricter Salafist elements and remnants of the Muslim Brotherhood. The result is a fragmented ruling environment where some actors push harsher conservative measures—not only to control public morals but also to undermine the government itself.
Opponents have tried to mobilize against the crackdown, but because there is so much international support for these measures, it has been difficult for them to oppose directly and openly. Instead, they have lashed out against secular, liberal Muslims and others—both to retain their own power and to show they have not abandoned their broader religious objectives. Without understanding this complicated situation in Egypt, it is hard to address it properly.
The Egyptian government is not monochrome or monolithic. It is filled with rival factions and interests that are not always coordinated. Because of the prolonged economic crisis, many of these interests have managed to reassert themselves after being suppressed for years. None of this is positive, and all of it is deeply concerning.
The arrests of women, secularists, and others are not the root cause—they are a symptom. Yes, they create new grievances, but they are really signs of larger internal political trends. If Egypt’s situation is to return to its most hopeful period, those deeper currents must be addressed.
Jacobsen: Moving to another case: a letter was recently published by seven UN Special Rapporteurs on human rights addressed to Shell and other oil companies.
The context here is the historic pollution of the Niger Delta. Issa Sanusi, Amnesty International’s Nigeria Director, stated: “Amnesty International has been researching and campaigning on oil pollution in Nigeria since the 1990s. The UN Special Rapporteurs have concurred with our findings that the repeated oil spills in the Niger Delta amount to violations of human rights. For every rights violation, there must be a remedy. Shell and other companies responsible for oil spills in the region must therefore clean up affected areas and compensate local communities for the decades of harm caused by these violations… We call on Shell to accept its responsibility. Divesting from assets and operations does not absolve the company of responsibility for its past actions.”
That seems straightforward as a news item. The companies should be held accountable for reckless and negligent environmental damage.
Tsukerman: The challenge, however, is that the most directly interested parties—the governments of the countries involved—are often themselves complicit. They may have contributed to the pollution or signed the agreements with the companies in the first place. Those governments should be the ones pressuring corporations to act responsibly and to fund remediation. The reality is far more complex.
In some cases, governments in West Africa are either corrupt, uninterested, or overwhelmed by competing priorities. Environmental preservation often takes a back seat to urgent security concerns. The region is plagued by conflicts—separatists versus pro-government forces, jihadists against the pro-Russian juntas, and in Nigeria’s case, an array of separatist groups, militias, jihadist networks, and Boko Haram.
Accusations of corruption, mismanagement, and poor governance further weaken the ability of states to respond. Environment is not at the top of the list. We saw this during the Biden administration’s push for green-energy transitions in Africa—ambitious in theory but underfunded and ultimately beyond what many of these countries were equipped to handle.
When large international contractors or even local firms cause environmental damage, real accountability requires resources—human, financial, and political—that many states lack. If those same companies provide badly needed income, governments hesitate to alienate them by demanding reparations. Leaders may fear losing revenue, foreign investment, or even their own grip on power.
This leaves a scenario where, unless lawsuits are filed abroad or influential private stakeholders intervene, corporations may escape meaningful accountability for environmental harm.
Tsukerman: Moving on—Reuters is leading with a shocking story: the murder of a significant political commentator. Charlie Kirk was killed yesterday—potentially a political assassination. Images spread first on TikTok and other social media before they reached major outlets. I spoke earlier with someone who saw a leaked video from just a few feet away. They said once they saw the blood loss from the jugular, they knew he was dead immediately, regardless of any cautious wording in early reports.
Tsukerman: The suspect has been named as Tyler Robinson, a 22-year-old Utah resident. The governor of Utah announced, “We got him,” though that may be premature.
U.S. President Donald Trump has already said he will attend Kirk’s funeral. Reports also mention that the unfired shell casings were engraved, although details about what was written may never be made public.
In the United States, there has been commentary noting a spike in politically related violence. This latest murder of a political activist fits that troubling pattern. Authorities have a suspect in custody, but the commentary around the case is varied. What are your thoughts?
First, no one should ever be murdered for their political beliefs, no matter how controversial. That principle should be obvious. The concern now is that this incident will spark a political backlash and further polarize already divided groups. We are already seeing finger-pointing, blame games, and heated rhetoric.
The activist himself started as a mainstream conservative student organizer. He never completed college, but he played a pivotal role in mobilizing younger people to engage with political issues, initially doing so peacefully and respectfully. Over time, though, his positions became more controversial.
Part of that can be explained by what’s called “audience capture.” Instead of leading his audience, he became shaped by their demands, repeating whatever resonated emotionally rather than developing a coherent set of ideas. He was more an activist than a political thinker, and that made him vulnerable to conspiracy theories.
Years ago, some of his commentary already showed he was parroting what appealed emotionally in the media climate rather than critically processing it. Eventually, he fell in with pro-Russian influencers and U.S. media figures like Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens, who became known for conspiratorial rhetoric.
Candace Owens and her associates were particularly influential. They helped him expand his Turning Point organization to the United Kingdom, where it became Turning Point UK. Whether he was financially incentivized or convinced, he increasingly aligned himself with their worldview and the broader MAGA movement.
His activism also grew more controversial when he introduced “watch lists” of professors on campus whom he labelled as biased or hostile to conservative students. Given academia’s predominantly left-leaning orientation, this was provocative and drew significant backlash, regardless of whether the lists were selective or not.
He started inviting Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens to his symposia, even after they made conspiratorial and, in some cases, anti-Semitic remarks. That caused consternation among some of his pro-Israel followers, who had initially supported him because, in his earlier years, he was quite effective at countering anti-Israel accusations through respectful debate.
Over time, though, he became a close ally of President Trump. Both Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu issued public statements after he was shot.
He is widely considered the most successful conservative activist in terms of reach and organizational effectiveness—his ability to build a movement, recruit young people, and secure funding. In that sense, he was very good at his job. Whether his rhetoric damaged the public sphere by contributing to conspiratorial, post-factual discourse is subject to intense debate.
His views became increasingly controversial, and his platforming of conspiracy theories did not advance honest or truthful conversation, if that was ever his objective.
The way he died, however, was clearly pre-planned, intentional, and political. It happened during one of the debates he himself organized on a Utah campus. The crowd was large, mostly supporters, but the security presence was minimal. He had his own security detail, but they were not positioned to detect someone aiming from 200 meters away.
The FBI made mistakes early on by arresting two individuals prematurely, announcing them as suspects without solid confirmation. They were quickly released. A third suspect—whose appearance matched video evidence and who allegedly confessed to his father, a sheriff—is now in custody.
Observers noted the shooter’s composure suggested at least some training. As the son of a sheriff, he may have had access to rifles and the preparation required. The video shows that if it was indeed Tyler, he did not panic. He fled quickly, discarded the weapon, and was arrested later. Had he not spoken to his father, it might have taken far longer to catch him, since sunglasses and misleading clothing obscured his face.
That points to a deliberate political assassination. Reports indicate Tyler’s parents are registered Republicans and past contributors to Trump. So, as usual, a grim turn in U.S. politics. The shooter was identified not through law enforcement efficiency but because his father, a former sheriff in southwestern Utah, recognized him.
Jacobsen: Did a pastor also turn him in?
Tsukerman: Yes. His father, who used to be a sheriff and is now a pastor, identified his son and held him until authorities arrived.
Jacobsen: Do we know the circumstances? Whether the son cooperated or resisted?
Tsukerman: That remains unclear. What we do know is that the son comes from a conservative, Republican, pro-Trump background. The right is now trying to frame the narrative as if he was “radicalized in college.” That is ridiculous. He studied electronics for a semester. You do not get steeped in politics by studying circuit boards. At most, he may have taken another technical course at another college. I was a math and physics major myself, and the most “political” classroom discussion was about hockey.
His widow, Erica Erck, went on Hannity and gave a speech about Charlie being “up in heaven fighting for us.” She said this was the start of a bigger movement—”where there was one Charlie, now there will be ten, or a hundred.”
The right is trying to blame the left, including Trump himself. Across Twitter, there is a flood of chatter: “gird up, we’re going to take it to them.” “Them” is loosely understood as liberals.
Erica, his widow, is a former beauty pageant contestant. She clearly comes from an evangelical background, and her speaking style reflects that tradition—dramatic, emotional, performative in a way. You have to feel sympathy for her loss; she and her children have been devastated. But her way of testifying, while deeply sincere to evangelicals, comes across as staged or “fakey” to many liberals.
It is not fakery—it is rooted in her religious and cultural tradition. But it functions as a call to action for her base, whether intentional or not. The impact could be significant. Tens of millions may hear her message.
The rhetoric is not cooling down. The only prominent figure urging restraint is the Republican governor of Utah, who frequently says things like “this isn’t the time to gin things up,” “let’s step back from social media,” and “go outside, touch grass, talk with your family.”
That may resonate with moderates, but it is unlikely to persuade the hardened factions. Conservatives who are already committed appear to be doubling down in their resolve.
Jacobsen: Do you see this murder being used politically as a justification for retaliatory violence?
Tsukerman: Absolutely. People are already invoking parallels to Horst Wessel in pre-Nazi Germany. Every time a Nazi or “good German” was killed, it was exploited for propaganda. Kristallnacht itself was orchestrated after a single assassination, serving as the pretext for the violence they had already planned. This killing in the U.S. was not coordinated in the same way—it appears to be the act of a lone individual—but the rhetoric is following the same pattern: ginning up hate and hinting at action against Trump’s opponents.
Trump himself has been preparing the ground—talking about using the National Guard in Chicago, trying to create distractions from other controversies like Epstein, and steering focus away from economic trouble. Inflation has been rising gradually, the economy is showing signs of decline, and political scapegoating becomes a convenient outlet.
Jacobsen: It’s important to note that the overwhelming majority of extremist violence in the United States has come from right-wing extremists. The second-largest category is Islamist-inspired attacks. Left-wing extremist violence exists but is a distant third. Most reasonable observers know this. However, about one-third of Americans reject the data because they identify with the side that is more skeptical of facts.
Tsukerman: Liberals have been sharing pie charts and statistics showing the breakdown of extremist violence—right-wing, left-wing, and Islamist. The numbers consistently show the far right as the dominant source of violence. Yet the right is already shifting blame, claiming they are the actual victims of “hate from the left.”
Jacobsen: And if you compare rhetoric, I would strongly suspect that the language from the right is also more extreme and inflammatory. Someone should quantify that systematically. Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Irina.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/01
On September 21, 2025, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia, then Portugal, recognized the State of Palestine akin to the State of Israel. An orientation around a two-State solution within the United Nations.
Something recognized amongst a majority of the Member States of the United Nations, as recently as September 12 with a condemnation of Hamas (142 votes in favour, 10 against, 12 abstentions). Other countries have recognized the State of Palestine, recently, too: France, Belgium, Luxembourg, Malta, Slovenia, and Mexico.
Some estimates put recognition of the State of Palestine at 147-151 of the 193 Member States of the UN. The vast majority of the world’s Member States recognize Palestinian statehood. Recognition is not actualization. These four new additions change the frame even further into these long-term historical trends towards a two-State solution.
In 2011, Palestine joined UNESCO and acceded to the International Criminal Court in 2015. In 2015, the Rome Statute entered into force for Palestine. The two-State frame of the UN and most capitals tends to reference the 1967 lines of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza. Capitals typically upgrade missions from a delegation to an embassy with a Palestinian recognized head of state. Most states emphasize the PLO, and international recognition usually condemns Hamas, as per September 12, 2025.
In 2024, the UN rights were expanded for Palestine; the UN General Assembly claimed Palestine as “qualified” for full UN membership and expanded GA participation rights, while not being a full UN member. Members require Security Council approval. The US has veto. Therefore, US blockade prevents this.
If this continues, then, potentially, a State of Palestine could be formally recognized outside of the 2012 status recognition at the UN as a non-member observer state on the same level as the Holy See (the Vatican), while having its expanded rights in 2024. If that happens, would we see diplomatic representation as we see with consuls? There are two types. Those with an office, Consul General. Those without one, Honorary Consul.
In Asia, Israel is represented by Gadi Harpaz in Chengdu, Alex Goldman Shayman in Guangzhou, Amir Lati in Hong Kong, and Ravit Baer in Shanghai, all serving as Consuls General in China. In India, the Consuls General are Orli Weitzman in Bengaluru and Kobbi Shoshani in Mumbai. In Türkiye, Rami Hatan serves as Consul General in Istanbul, while in the United Arab Emirates, Liron Zaslansky is the Consul General in Dubai.
Across Europe, Israel’s representation includes Adamos A. Varnava, the Honorary Consul in Nicosia, Cyprus, and Leon Glikman, the Honorary Consul in Tallinn, Estonia. In Germany, Talya Lador-Fresher is the Consul General in Munich. In Russia, Olga Slov serves as Consul General in Saint Petersburg. In Ukraine, Oleg Vyshniakov is the Honorary Consul in Lviv. In the United Kingdom, Stanley Lovatt serves as Honorary Consul in Glasgow.
In North America, Israel is represented in Canada by Eliaz Luf, Consul General in Montréal, and Idit Shamir, Consul General in Toronto. In Mexico, the Honorary Consuls are Edoardo Gurgo Salice in Cancún, Marcos Shemaria Zlotorynski in Guadalajara, Miguel Otto Schwarz in Monterrey, and Gregorio Goldstein Isaacson in Tijuana. In the United States, Consuls General include Eitan Weiss in Atlanta, Benny Sharoni in Boston, Yinam Cohen in Chicago, Livia Link-Raviv in Houston, Israel Bachar in Los Angeles, Maor Elbaz-Starinsky in Miami, Ofir Akunis in New York, and Marco Sermoneta in San Francisco.
In South America, Israel’s consular presence is represented by Rafael Erdreich, Consul General in São Paulo, Brazil. In Africa, Robert Stravens serves as Honorary Consul of Israel in Victoria, Seychelles. In the Caribbean, Flora Gunn serves as Honorary Consul of Israel in Kingstown, St. Vincent and the Grenadines.
Many general consuls and honorary consuls exist for Israel. The first Israeli consulate abroad was in New York in 1948 after independence. Arthur Lourie was the inaugural Consul General. It was a crucial office for mobilization of political support to North America on behalf of Israel.
Honorary consuls as an institution were developed later and often in smaller European and Latin American states. These handled cultural, diaspora, and trade, affairs. They were not career diplomats. They were influential citizens, often Jewish community leaders embedded to promote Israel’s interests.
For the limited statehood at the UN and recognition internationally, for Palestine, there is, in fact, a limited number of consul generals in Egypt (Wafiq Abu Sidu), Iraq [Kurdistan Region] (Mahr Karaki), Saudi Arabia (Mahmoud Yahya Al-Asadi), Türkiye (Hanaa Abu Ramadan), and United Arab Emirates (Mohammad As’ad).
Which raises the original questions, if things continue to proceed in this overwhelming direction–without judgment but an assessment of the large-scale vector over time, who will be the General Consul Lourie of a possible future full Member State Palestine? On that possibility, it would still be another 77 years on top of that to get to the current stature of the consuls working for better representation of Palestine in an equivalent capacity.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/12/09
Watch,
Unstill the dark:
פיקוח נפש.
And the moneyflows wheretwo,
The curiassly guarded and the curiouser still,
Altilrollringalinglonging,
Fears and Gears Road,
You, watched,
The monthsindaisies,
Bloomtime, tis’ high noon time,
Get to work,
Untimely me,
Unmimely me,
Kindly me,
Mindly me,
But timely watchers.
Goons of victories past.
Queries on questions in inquiries,
As enquiry,
While an askance smile.
You see me.
I see you.
Do we know one another?
And a collective mind,
The allpunisher carries a Mary mile,
The Virginal Birther,
Which is to say:
an immortalized Liar and a gullible Lyre married once upon a time…
All collective punishment as collective injustice;
Justice is In-divide-ual:
Select acts of a single worldline, ultimately.
Moniedup flowing from their memory to sewer Vat.
An apropos feminine judiciary via the Worldwide Hearsay.
Mob justice as social justice.
Tell it like it is,
The judges of this court betray another,
Therefore justice is impossible,
And impunity assured,
Therefore freedom assured to Eggs himself:
“Hello. What shall I offer thee?”
The one who is free,
Is always seen with a lilt,
Then unseen.
“If he used the last brain cell in his head…”
Dad’s of Anger:
Inflammable, petulant, childish, paternalisms,
Therefore Western.
‘They, the disunited together.’
Never underhension in any cases,
Comprendehanded in averyway.
Look ahead,
Wrong future,
So watch your back,
It can change your eyes.
Most are corruptible,
Watch.
Counting, count.
Tikking, Tolk.
The folks are back,
so change your eyes.
The devil likes devilled eggs.
Impresario imprecations.
The rest are corruptible,
And watch.
Count to,
Two.
Pauses.
Look ahead,
Your threepassed depends on it.
All together now.
A choir symphony,
Sungas singalong singsong.
“Who’s there?”
Wheatkings,
“…in the Paris of the Prairies.”
Stray Canadian,
Fingers in the dirt.
Thousands.
The morrow brings the —
Look back —
Fruit.
Then for now.
Not sacrifice qua sacrifice for the fruit.
Sacrifice in the right soil,
For the fruit.
Careful, risk of tart, still, too.
“Have some taste.”
Watch ahead.
Tomorrow brings sorrows and saints.
Everything is corruptible.
“You are a troublemaker.”
Men in one way.
Women in another.
“A flake and a snowflake,”
And a broken man’s crying foul.
Watched.
No slip-ups, therefore.
Saint.
Sooner or later,
The Before and the After,
Are Here and Now.
Watch yourself:
My next Act.
Photo by Scott Jacobsen on Unsplash
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/15
Mina Sharif is an Afghan Canadian writer and cultural advocate whose work explores identity, exile, and belonging through the lens of everyday life in Afghanistan and the diaspora. Educated in Canada and active in Kabul for over a decade, she has worked with youth and women through storytelling and humanitarian projects. Her writing bridges Afghan oral traditions with contemporary global sensibilities, blending lyrical realism and social reflection. Sharif continues to write and speak internationally on the transformative role of art as a medium of reconstruction, memory, and moral imagination in societies navigating conflict and cultural renewal.
In this conversation, Mina Sharif speaks with Scott Douglas Jacobsen about You Are What You Love, her reflective collection exploring identity, exile, and affection amid social upheaval. Sharif discusses how limited narratives about Afghanistan inspired her to write beyond statistics and geopolitics, portraying the nuanced realities of daily life. She reflects on living between cultures, embracing both Afghan and Canadian identities, and shaping a “third culture” rooted in balance rather than division. Through her discussion of language, love, and nuance, Sharif emphasizes art’s power to reconstruct memory, resist oversimplification, and humanize the complexities of belonging.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: The book under discussion today is You Are What You Love—a reflective, narrative-driven exploration of identity, loss, and the power of affection amid social upheaval. What inspired you not just to write the story, but to write it now?
Mina Sharif: The collection of stories I wrote was a direct response to the conversations about Afghanistan I was invited to join. In my opinion—or rather, in my feeling—those conversations didn’t seek to capture a fuller picture of Afghanistan. The questions I was asked felt flat and outside of what I wanted to discuss, which was the nuance of everyday life in Afghanistan. The questions were always limited to statistics, war, and geopolitics—consistently cast in a negative light—and didn’t offer me the opportunity to share the daily life that I felt so strongly about. For that reason, I started to write about what I wasn’t being asked.
Jacobsen: Do you feel exile is a fragmented experience?
Sharif: Absolutely. Exile is living more than one life at the same time. You are maintaining a connection to a place where you no longer live and trying to build that part of your identity from fragments—stories, headlines, books—all while developing your identity in what you might call your equally substantial host country. You don’t really have anyone to compare that to. So yes, it’s fragmented in both of your worlds—assuming you only have two main ones. Some people have even more than that.
Jacobsen: Do you think people who live that dual-cultural experience are more likely, once they find an integration point between cultures, to become more individuated in their opinions of either culture?
Sharif: I think there’s pressure for people in a diaspora situation to define themselves clearly as one over the other. That’s their central conundrum, more so than developing distinct opinions about either side. It’s more about not feeling entirely accepted or complete in either identity. They’re constantly negotiating which identity defines them more, rather than accepting that both can contribute equally to who they are.
RelatedArticles
Afghan Women Journalists Under Taliban Rule: Freshta Hemmati on Censorship, Threats, and Press Freedom
The Spark of Resistance, Women’s Unity, and the Rise of Female Identity in Afghanistan
Jacobsen: How would you frame this lyrical battle within yourself? How do you use words and inner dialogue to make things fit so that you feel at peace with yourself?
Sharif: My process came through what I would describe as an epiphany. I don’t even have a definitive way to tell that moment. It came when I returned to Canada and realized that I didn’t want to be angry at one part of the world or the other for why I was in exile, or why I could never stay in any place by choice—whether it was being unable to live in Afghanistan because of the security situation, which I was often tempted to blame, or struggling to find where I belonged. I finally stepped away from that pattern.
I realized that I sincerely loved both parts of my identity and that I didn’t have to choose. That realization gave me a kind of bird’s-eye view—the very perspective I was always asked to take in the first place: “Which one are you more?” And I reached the point where I could finally say…
I’m neither more Canadian nor more Afghan. I am as wholly Canadian as I choose to be, and as entirely Afghan. And I really took that pressure off my own shoulders.
Jacobsen: What throughlines did you find? Was there no need for integration because they were already present in both Afghanistan and Canada, or at least between the areas of Afghanistan you’re from and the areas of Canada you came to? What were the more incongruous parts of culture that may have taken a little more time?
Sharif: I think the standard cultural customs were easy because they’re really welcomed in Canada, even outside of the home. They’re also easy to transfer from one geography to another—the music we listened to, the food we ate, the clothing, and a fundamental knowledge of history. I felt really secure about those things in both places regarding Afghanistan.
It was more a question of: what does daily life look like in a collective that you can’t fully understand until you live in it? I don’t think anyone can tell you enough stories for you to feel connected until you experience those small nuances—how things are done differently in the mundane sense of life, not just in the significant events. Celebrations, weddings—those traditions were passed on to me, and I recognized them even if I hadn’t experienced them firsthand. But it’s the everyday—the small, unremarkable rhythms—that are difficult to grasp without lived experience.
Jacobsen: In Canada and internationally, indigeneity is a vast topic. In the 1970s, indigeneity was federally codified in Canada—not by the first peoples who came across the Bering land bridge, like the Dene or the Inuit—but under three recognized categories: First Nations, Métis, and Inuit.
The Métis are an example of cross-cultural integration. You have people who fall under what might be called a mixed-ethnic background, and over a couple of centuries, they developed their own language—Michif—their own aesthetic, and their own syncretic traditions. It’s an admixture and an evolution of the cultures they came from.
For individuals like you, what are the “third culture” evolutions that have emerged from that process of integration?
Sharif: I think we’re really in the process of developing that. We’re still so fresh from the first-generation experience that those of us who are elder millennials or Gen X were probably still in survival mode—carrying that forward from our parents, who either arrived here or were recent arrivals.
We weren’t stopping to think about where we fit in at all. We were focused on adapting and building stability. But now, as we confront that conversation, and because the generations after us have had the peace and stability to live without that same sense of urgency, they can focus on identity. They understand that they come from more than one place.
Between us—the first generation—and those after us, I think we’re literally at the point of cultivating what that “third culture” means, what this new category represents. Whether we embrace that it includes more than one identity or more than one background, or whether, as I’ve often seen, people feel pressured to choose one side to fit into predefined categories—that’s the crossroads we’re at now.
Jacobsen: What is the importance to you of a grounded sense of sentiment and love, in some ways as an opposition to sentimentality or nostalgia? How do you characterize this throughout your writing?
Sharif: Nuance is my favourite word in the world. It applies here as well. It’s always a disservice to a memory, to a culture, or to an identity to paint it with a single stroke of colour. I’m always looking for the opposite of any given point…
Our culture is rigorous—it is. But I like to look for the parts of it that aren’t. Our culture is celebratory—it is. Let’s look for the parts that aren’t. That’s how I approach my own learning of who I am, both in my Canadian background and my Afghan one. I want that to translate into my writing as well, because I want Afghanistan to be approached with that kind of sentiment. You may not be wrong about what you’ve heard—or haven’t heard—but you should also assume that the opposite of it is always present.
Jacobsen: Are there any pieces of literature that have been translated from Farsi to English British or American—that you think do justice to the original intent of the work? Something essential to read, whether for its moral insight, cultural character, or simply for telling a great story?
Sharif: I wouldn’t say that I’ve come across that, but I think it’s important to note that the language we learn often shapes what we’re trying to learn. When something is translated from Farsi, I always view that work as originally intended for an audience with that cultural upbringing.
Where I find my space—or rather, the gap I’m trying to fill—is in writing about Afghanistan in a way that connects readers to the country through a Western lens. That’s where I saw there was room for me. I’m sure there’s plenty of Farsi literature that’s been translated—some wonderfully, some poorly—but it won’t resonate with me in the same way as something written by someone raised in the West.
I exist in between: someone with lived experience in Afghanistan, but who also speaks from a Western perspective. My writing is meant to resonate with that Western-raised lens. There are really two different audiences’ people are writing for, and the same work won’t have the same effect on both.
Jacobsen: Mina, thank you for your time today. I appreciate it.
Sharif: Thank you.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Nimrokh Media
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/22
Freshta Hemmati is a leading Afghan journalist and human-rights advocate who directs the Advocacy for Afghan Women project. Now in its second year, the initiative builds the capacity of women journalists and rights defenders inside and outside Afghanistan. Hemmati and her team provide training in leadership, advocacy, and digital security, while documenting the realities Afghan women face under Taliban rule. She has coordinated quarterly reports based on first-hand accounts from journalists across provinces, highlighting censorship, threats, labour-market collapse, and mental-health crises. Her work underscores both the resilience of Afghan women journalists and the urgent need for international solidarity.
In this in-depth interview with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Freshta Hemmati discusses the findings of her latest report on Afghan women journalists living under Taliban rule. She outlines how censorship is near-total, with more than 90 percent of reporting compelled to fit Taliban narratives. Hemmati explains the threats journalists face, the restrictions imposed by the mahram system, critical shortages of equipment, and the collapse of institutional support. She stresses the severe mental-health toll, with journalists describing daily despair. Hemmati calls for urgent international solidarity, arguing that without sustained support and action, Afghanistan risks losing an entire generation of women journalists and its fragile press freedom.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Thank you for joining me today, Freshta. We have an extensive report covering restrictions, the threat landscape, labour-market collapse, digital security, and mental health—it is a wide range, so we are going to cover quite a bit. How often do you publish a report—annually or quarterly?
Freshta Hemmati: It depends on the projects we are running, but over the past two years, we have published every quarter, every three months.
Jacobsen: What prompted the first report that got the ball rolling?
Hemmati: First, a bit about the project that generated this research. It is called Advocacy for Afghan Women, now in its second year of implementation inside Afghanistan. The goal is to build the capacity of women journalists and human-rights defenders. Last year, we trained 100 Afghan journalists and human-rights defenders inside and outside the country. This year, we are training 80 women journalists. We maintain regular contact with them and run a series of capacity-building trainings on leadership and advocacy mechanisms. The data we are publishing comes from first-hand sources in Afghanistan—people in our network who are in weekly contact with us. We wanted to understand, with evidence, what the past four years have looked like for Afghan women in journalism. We have repeatedly seen talented women step back from the field they love. Restrictions have severe effects. Some leave journalism, change careers, or stop working due to family or security pressures. We felt there needed to be data and statistics documenting this reality. That is why we decided to publish the report.
Jacobsen: How did you recruit 101 respondents for a Google Form survey under those security constraints?
Hemmati: Through our active network. These are not passive contacts—we speak with them on a weekly basis. We track security conditions across provinces and the threats people face. If someone can only share through an insecure channel, we do not accept the data. Many journalists still use WhatsApp or Facebook Messenger, which are not secure. Because we also run a digital-safety program for Afghan women, we are careful: we collect information in ways that align with our security policies.
RelatedArticles
Mina Sharif’s Story of Belonging and Meaning
The Spark of Resistance, Women’s Unity, and the Rise of Female Identity in Afghanistan
Jacobsen: Only 6.9 percent of women report being able to work openly and officially. Why isn’t that number zero?
Hemmati: That 6.9 percent (about 7 of 101 respondents) does not mean those respondents are entirely free to work. In our survey, they reported not receiving direct threats or orders from the current authorities—such as explicit bans on working as journalists, directives to censor specific topics, or instructions blocking publication. So they self-reported that they are working openly. Even so, 6.9 percent is very close to zero in practical terms. There are several possible explanations: some may genuinely not have been threatened; some may be reluctant to disclose threats. We have to write the report carefully and honestly, attributing findings to the survey rather than making broader claims.
Jacobsen: And 35.6 percent work with restrictions and 32.7 percent work secretly. Just one footnote there—how is “secretly” being defined? Is it under a pseudonym?
Hemmati: Absolutely. When we talk about working secretly under the Taliban, it is because so many media outlets have been shut down in Afghanistan. Some Afghan women journalists still refuse to accept these restrictions. They find ways to share information and realities about Afghanistan. That often happens through exiled media based outside Afghanistan, as well as international organizations that provide Afghan women journalists with tools to collect data or file stories for them. No one knows who is working for which outlet. They are in contact with organizations abroad. I appreciate those who collaborate carefully with these women, taking into account their digital security. In the past, many Afghan women journalists worked with international outlets without proper safety measures. Threats followed. WhatsApp accounts were hacked. Some were caught by the de facto regime because there were no clear safety policies in place. However, those who now follow digital-security protocols help keep Afghan women safe. So “secretly” refers to those working without their identities known, mainly because the Taliban actively gather information on journalists. They require IDs, addresses, and other personal details daily. Women in particular work secretly with exiled and international media outside Afghanistan.
Jacobsen: And 24.8 percent have stopped working altogether. Content control is near total. Over 90 percent of reporting is compelled. Journalists are intimidated, coerced, or pressured in some other way to alter their stories so they fit Taliban narratives about particular events. The survey showed that 68.3 percent said the control was “largely” and 23.8 percent said “minor.” Can you go into the kinds of responses that followed from that?
Hemmati: Absolutely. This problem affects the entire Afghan media community, not only women, male or female, it does not matter. Journalists’ words are censored. Editors now sit in newsrooms taking orders from the Taliban to remove or change wording about any event that contradicts Taliban policies, reveals weaknesses of the de facto government, or might be defined as a threat to their authority. Such content must be censored. Women face this censorship more frequently because being a woman journalist in Afghanistan is itself seen as a challenge to the regime. Afghan women are well aware of their rights, and the Taliban view them as a threat—but also, paradoxically, as a propaganda tool. If a woman journalist says, “Everything is fine, we can report freely,” the Taliban use that as credit for their governance. So women face this more, but censorship affects men and women alike.
I had one report from Bamiyan province where a journalist described the censorship as extreme. She said she would work from 8 a.m. until three or four in the afternoon, submit her report to the editor, and when she received the revised version, none of her original words remained. It was censored entirely and altered to the point she did not even recognize it as her own work. That is the reality of how this suppressive regime treats Afghan journalists, especially women.
Jacobsen: Threats are also another issue. Journalists get threats worldwide—that is not new. It is the degree that matters. In your survey, 55.4 percent reported personal threats and 15.8 percent reported outlet-level threats. What is the distinction between outlet-level threats and personal threats? The first seems more obvious, but “outlet” leaves some room for interpretation.
Hemmati: Many Afghan women journalists are directly told not to work as journalists—“go do something else.” The Taliban do not issue broad official bans for all women in a province at once. Instead, they target women personally, saying, “We know who you are, we know who you work for, and we know what kind of stories you produce.” They use heavy words to shame these women into giving up their profession. When it comes to threats against their work, they are often content-based. For example, if women journalists cover something sensitive for the Taliban government, they are told their words must be censored or they are forbidden from discussing those issues. We have had many reports of Afghan women journalists attending public Taliban conferences and asking questions such as, “What is your reason for the school ban on women?” They later receive direct threats—sometimes delivered to their editors—demanding that those journalists be warned not to ask such questions again. So there is a clear difference: personal threats are aimed directly at the journalist, while work-related threats are directed through media outlets.
Jacobsen: In a government run by men, many women report not being able to interview men. To get an official position or statement from the government—when it is male-dominated—Afghan women journalists cannot directly reach high-ranking officials. Is that the implication?
Hemmati: It is obvious. In a government run by men, Afghan women journalists do not see themselves represented, either in government or in the profession they are passionate about. It is a male-dominated system. This is why the international community must take concrete action—more than just issuing condemnation letters about human rights. A generation is being erased day by day in Afghanistan, especially with the threats Afghan women journalists face. Journalism is the process by which information is collected and shared; the media serve as the mouth and eyes of the people. If women are shut out of journalism, how will the world know what is happening in Afghanistan? Even with semi-active media outlets, the truth is not being reported. Journalists are too afraid to speak openly about critical issues. They secretly share information, which we then bring to the table in our reports. There must be concrete action to support the resilience and remarkable courage Afghan women journalists show today.
Jacobsen: Now, mahram—the male guardian system—is another instrument they have put in place. Is it also used to limit how Afghan women journalists can travel and do their work? A male guardian restricts women’s travel. For women journalists, can that requirement be weaponized to stop them from doing their work?
Hemmati: Of course. It is not only about Afghan women journalists, but since we are focusing on them, they are required to have a male chaperone—a mahram—to accompany them to do their work. For example, if a woman journalist travels from Kabul to Herat or Kunar to cover an earthquake, she must be accompanied by a male relative. However, what if she does not have a mahram—a brother, father, husband, or other male relative recognized under Sharia law? Should she be forced to give up her profession simply because she lacks a male guardian? This raises serious questions about how the Taliban create and implement these rules, particularly regarding women in the media. It is deeply concerning and should ring alarm bells across the global media community. The resilience Afghan women show inside the country is extraordinary, but it is not receiving enough international solidarity or support. If we want that resilience to continue growing, the world must stand by them, speak out about their struggles, and defend their right to work. The Taliban’s restrictions—whether requiring male chaperones or enforcing other absurd policies—are unacceptable in the 21st century.
Jacobsen: Some describe this as a retreat from the Age of Reason.
Hemmati: Absolutely.
Jacobsen: To be a journalist today, you need technology: cameras, phones with cameras, recorders, at least a phone with a recorder to capture voices. What critical equipment shortages or restrictions are Afghan journalists facing? The report notes that 44.6 percent face such limitations.
Hemmati: Because of financial constraints and reduced funding, Afghan media outlets lack even the most basic tools of journalism. Reporters often cannot afford a camera or a microphone to adequately cover events. Instead, many go out with only a simple phone to show resilience—that they are still alive, still working, and still reporting on critical issues from inside Afghanistan. These shortages worsened after U.S. funding cuts, which had a significant impact on Afghan media. As a result, journalists are not equipped with even the basic—not modern, just basic—tools required for their profession. However, despite this, I am proud of Afghan journalists. With all these restrictions, they continue to demonstrate resilience, insisting, “We are still here in Afghanistan, and we are still reporting.”
Jacobsen: International funding cuts are one issue, but your report also shows 29.7 percent of women have given up journalism entirely. There is a “support desert”: 80.2 percent reported no institutional support in the past 12 months, 85.1 percent reported no security or advocacy training since August 2021, and only 11.9 percent reported receiving mental health support—meaning 82.1 percent received none. These seem like an interconnected package. What are your reflections?
Hemmati: They are absolutely connected. Imagine having a job where you are not appropriately paid, while living with constant threats that at any moment the Taliban could ban you from your profession or your workplace. That daily fear inevitably impacts your mental health. You become stressed, depressed, and consumed with worry. From our experience working with women across different provinces, I can say that if not 100 percent, at least 90 percent of Afghan journalists are facing serious mental health challenges. They reach out to us individually, telling us they feel trapped in chaos and do not know where to turn for help.
This raises another alarm: how can accurate journalism be produced when journalists themselves are struggling so profoundly with mental health? That is why, through AMSOIL, we have integrated mental health programs into our projects for Afghan women journalists. We run psychosocial support sessions, and while confidentiality prevents us from sharing details, the stories we hear are horrifying. These sessions are helpful, but they are not enough. What is needed is a comprehensive mechanism and a strategic approach to equip Afghan journalists with coping tools within the country.
As you said, all these issues are interconnected. If one element—funding, training, security, or mental health—is neglected, the entire profession suffers. With women facing threats, safety concerns, and unaddressed psychological strain, Afghanistan risks losing an entire generation of women journalists.
Jacobsen: Afghanistan has now fallen to 178th on the RSF Press Freedom Index. There are other, less-publicized measures, but this is at least one recognized indicator. What does this portend? What does it say about the future of press freedom, at least in the foreseeable future?
Hemmati: It is heartbreaking. Afghanistan already struggled to build a free press during two decades of democracy. We were starting from scratch, and after years of sacrifice, we had finally reached some level of development for the media community. Then, in a matter of days, weeks, or months, all of that progress was wiped away by the Taliban’s suppressive regime. Afghanistan is sliding backward in every category, and this is devastating for the Afghan people, especially for the media.
When organizations such as Reporters Without Borders publish these findings, they should be understood as alarms for the entire international community. Afghanistan is in crisis. Just because there are no bombings or shootings on a given day does not mean people are not suffering a disaster. Many Afghans describe their daily existence as a “cold death”—they may not be physically killed, but they cannot breathe freely, live openly, or speak truthfully.
This reality connects directly to mental health. We hear from many journalists who wake up each morning wondering how to harm themselves or even end their lives. This is not rare—it is widespread. If the numbers appear lower, it is often because of stigma. Mental health problems remain taboo in Afghan society, so people hesitate to admit what they are going through. However, in reality, the level of suffering is exceptionally high.
Everything is interconnected: censorship, repression, lack of funding, loss of rights, and mental health crises. If the international community does not take concrete action now—after four years of Taliban rule with no sign of improvement—Afghanistan’s press freedom and journalists, especially women, face an even darker future.
The Taliban keep saying the situation will improve, but after their second takeover, we have not seen a single development. This shows they are not capable of governing. If concrete actions are not taken, Afghanistan will continue to fall further behind the rest of the world.
Jacobsen: Last question—what is the most ridiculous rationale they have given for restricting women journalists or the media?
Hemmati: There are so many. They make absurd statements like, “The situation will get better, we just need some time, we are new to government.” However, it has been four years. In a democracy, a president serves a five-year term, and they have already been in power nearly that long. They keep making commitments with no action, which makes their claims ironic at best and dishonest at worst. Their words are only promises on paper or verbal statements, never concrete steps.
In closing, I want to emphasize that Afghan women journalists are not asking for sympathy; they are asking for solidarity. They continue working under impossible restrictions while the Taliban repeat false promises—saying women can go to school, work, or participate in media—yet in reality they tighten control further. These contradictions are devastating for Afghan women in the media.
The resilience of Afghan women journalists is real, but it has limits. When they feel abandoned, without solidarity, they naturally grow exhausted from fighting for their rights. Without sustained international action, financial support, and safety mechanisms, their voices risk being silenced completely. Solidarity is not optional anymore—it is urgent. The time to act is now.
Jacobsen: Excellent. Thank you very much for your time today. I appreciate it.
Hemmati: Thank you. Thanks, Scott, for having me.
Jacobsen: You are welcome.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen (Translated by Nimrokh)
Publication (Outlet/Website): Nimrokh Media
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09
شاخصهای بینالمللی دربارهی ناهمسانیهای جنسیتی در زمینههای بدرفتای جسمی، جنسی، روانی، مالی و ساختاری چه میگویند؟
نویسنده: اسکات داگلاس جاکوبسن
ترجمه: نیمرخ
شاخصهای بینالمللی الگوهای بدرفتاری مردان و زنان را نشان میدهند. ناهمسانیهای جنسیتی در زمینههای خشونت وجود دارد؛ چه در زمینهی خشونت جسمی، تعرض جنسی، بدرفتاری عاطفی/روانی، کنترل مالی/اقتصادی، و چه در زمینهی بدرفتاری در درون نهادها.
هم مردان و هم زنان ممکن است مرتکب این اشکال بدرفتاری شوند. پژوهشهای جهانی نشان میدهند که ناهمسانیهای جنسیتی چشمگیری در میزان شیوع، شدت و حتی در بستر وقوع این بدرفتاریها وجود دارد. در بسیاری از جوامع، مردان بخش نامتناسبی از خشونتهای شدید جسمی و جنسی را مرتکب میشوند.
زنان اغلب در الگوها یا بسترهای متفاوتی مرتکب بدرفتاری میشوند. بر اساس آمار دفتر مقابله با مواد مخدر و جرم سازمان ملل متحد (UNODC)، ۹۰ درصد عاملان قتل در سراسر جهان مَردند. بیشتر ضرب و جرحهای غیرکشنده و جرایم خشونتآمیز را مردان انجام میدهند. بخش عمدهی خشونتهای جسمی خانگی را نیز مردان انجام میدهند. در ایالات متحده، یک زن از هر سه زن و یک مرد از هر ده مرد، خشونت جسمی را تجربه میکنند.
زنان اغلب دچار جراحتهای شدیدتر و حملات مکرر میشوند و بیشترِ قتلهایی را که در پی روابط صمیمی صورت میگیرد، مردان انجام میدهند. ۳۸ درصد از زنان قربانی قتل، به دست شریک عاطفیشان کشته میشوند، در حالیکه این رقم برای قربانیان مرد تنها ۵ درصد است. مردان در سایر زمینهها اکثریت کسانی را تشکیل میدهند که مرتکب پرخاشگری جسمی میشوند.
فراوانی و مرگباربودن خشونت فزیکی بهسمت مردان انحراف پیدا میکند. با اینحال، این امر مبنای نادرستی برای کلیشهسازی فراگیر دربارهی مردان است. زنان نیز میتوانند و واقعاً آسیب جسمی وارد میکنند. خشونت جنسی نابرابرترین شکل بدرفتاری از منظر جنسیتی است. فرقی نمیکند در کدام گوشهای از جهان باشد. مردان اکثریت تعرضها و تجاوزهای جنسی را مرتکب میشوند.
آمار وزارت عدلیه ایالات متحده نشان میدهد که نزدیک به ۹۹ درصد از افرادی که مرتکب تجاوز یا تعرض جنسی میشوند، مَردند. زنان و دختران بیشترِ قربانیان سوءاستفادهی جنسی را تشکیل میدهند. سازمان جهانی صحت گزارش میدهد که یک زن از هر سه زن در طول زندگیاش خشونت جسمی و/یا جنسی را تجربه کرده است.
همچنان بخوانید
زنان افغانستان بیپناهتر از همیشه؛ خانههای ناامنتراز خیابان
نسلکشی فرهنگی
روز جهانی محو خشونت علیه زنان و تراژدی زنان در حاکمیت گروه طالبان
خطر اینکه مردان در طول عمرشان قربانی خشونت جنسی شوند، کمتر است. در ایالات متحده، حدود یک مرد از هر ۱۴ مرد گزارش داده است که در مقطعی از زندگیاش «وادار به دخول» یا مجبور به عمل جنسی شده است. زنان نیز مرتکب سوءاستفادهی جنسی میشوند، بهویژه در مواردی که افراد قدرتمند از کودکان سوءاستفاده میکنند. مطالعات مربوط به سوءاستفادهی جنسی از کودکان نشان میدهد که ۷۵ تا ۹۰ درصد عاملان این عمل مَردند، در حالیکه ۱۰ تا ۲۵ درصدشان زناند.
مجرمان زن اغلب پسران را هدف قرار میدهند. مجرمان مرد اغلب دختران را هدف قرار میدهند. سوءاستفادهی جنسی از سوی زنان بهدلیل کلیشهها کمتر شناسایی میشود. بنابراین، میزان واقعی سوءاستفاده از سوی زنان بالاتر از تخمینهای گزارششده است. سوءاستفادهی جنسی جرمی بهشدت جنسیتی است.
سوءاستفادهی عاطفی و روانی هم رایج است. هر دو جنس در سطوح قابلتوجهی سوءاستفادهی عاطفی، دستکاری روانی میکنند و آزار کلامی میدهند. در ایالات متحده، ۴۸٫۴ درصد از زنان و ۴۸٫۸ درصد از مردان گزارش دادهاند که پرخاشگری روانی را تجربه کردهاند.
این رفتارهای آزارگرانه شامل تحقیرکردن، کنترلکردن، توهین، ارعاب، انزوا، تهدید و موارد دیگر میشود. مردان و زنان این رفتارها را به شیوههای متفاوتی بهکار میگیرند. زنان به اندازهی مردان یا بیشتر از آنها پرخاشگری کلامی میکنند؛ از جمله داد و فریادزدن، ناسزاگویی و موارد مشابه دیگر.
مردان اغلب تهدید به خشونت را با پرخاشگری کلامی ترکیب کنند – الگویی از سلطه در قالب الگویی پایدار از کنترل. زنان اغلب به پرخاشگری رابطهای از طریق طرد اجتماعی، القای حس گناهکاربودن یا دستکاری عاطفی، مانند تحقیر مردانگی شریکشان یا استفاده از تاکتیکهای منفعلانه-پرخاشگرانه، گرایش دارند.
بدرفتاری مالی یا اقتصادی شامل کنترل کار و شغل، پول یا منابع قربانی است. در بافتارهای مردسالارانه، مردان اغلب مرتکب بدرفتاری مالی میشوند؛ محیطی که در آن مرد تسلط قابلتوجهی بر تصمیمات مالی خانواده دارد. سالمندآزاری در میان مردان و زنان رایج است و از طریق بهرهکشی از سالمندان صورت میگیرد.
سوءاستفادهی نهادی به معنای بدرفتاری در درون نظامهای مراقبتی یا قدرت است. هم مردان و هم زنان مرتکب آن میشوند. در خانههای سالمندان و مراکز مراقبت طولانیمدت، دو-سوم از کارکنان اعتراف کردهاند که در سال گذشته مرتکب بدرفتاری با افراد سالمند شدهاند.
مراقبتکنندگان اصلی سالمندان عمدتاً زناناند. زنان بهطرزی برجسته و قابلتوجهی عاملان بدرفتاری نهادی در مراقبت از سالمندان را تشکیل میدهند. در رسواییهای فاحش مربوط به بدرفتاری نهادی عمدتاً پای مردانی دخیل است که از صلاحیت و قدرتشان سوءاستفاده کردهاند.
سوءاستفادهی نهادی کمتر به جنسیتِ عامل و بیشتر به نابرابریهای قدرت بستگی دارد. کسانی که در سمت بالاتر قرار دارند، چه زن و چه مرد، ممکن است با افراد آسیبپذیر زیردستشان بدرفتاری کنند. شیوههای بدرفتاریْ الگوهای کلانتر جنسیتی را منعکس میکنند: کارکنان مرد اغلب عامل خشونتهای جنسیاند، در حالیکه کارکنان زن اغلب عامل کمتوجهی یا بدرفتاری عاطفیاند. کارشناسان تأکید دارند که هم زنان و هم مردان میتوانند در محیطهای نهادی مرتکب بدرفتاری شدید شوند.
عاملان خشونت مرد بیشتر دچار اختلال شخصیت ضداجتماعی یا اختلال شخصیت خودشیفتهاند. عاملان زن بیشتر ویژگیهای شخصیتِ مرزی را از خود بروز میدهند. سوگیریها و کلیشههای نهادی ممکن است منجر به آن شوند که زنانِ عامل بدرفتاری پاسخگو شناخته نشوند. قربانیان زن اغلب با بیاعتمادی مواجه میشوند.
پرسشهای بیشتر در هر دو موردِ اقلیت معنادار زنان و مردانی که مرتکب بدرفتاری میشوند، ناظر به پیامدها، انگیزهها یا الگوهای آنان است.
—
اسکات داگلاس جاکوبسن (Scott Douglas Jacobsen) ناشر «اینسایت پابلیشینگ» (In-Sight Publishing) و سردبیر «اینسایت: گفتگوها» (In-Sight: Interviews) است. داگلاس برای «پروژهی مردان نیک» (The Good Men Project)، «اینترنشنال پالیسی دایجست» (International Policy Digest)، «هیومنیست» (The Humanist)، «شبکهی جهانی درآمد پایه» (Basic Income Earth Network – بنیاد خیریهای ثبتشده در بریتانیا)، «پژوهشی دیگر» (A Further Inquiry) و رسانههای دیگر مینویسد و عضو رسمی و برجستهی چندین سازمان رسانهای است.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/24
Spin.
Off line, and wait.
Online, or graze.
“Bach for people who don’t really like Bach.”
Watchon and unweight.
Tiltrollrr, stolen ship side,
Runrumming, Californingaling,
Stateswide to Confederanada,
Upzees and downaas,
International at ease nationalitease, and.
Sunk to Floort Langley, you seespin?
A crisis.
A Midas,
I.
A golden bridge,
to jump,
Three faced,
Zoo front,
and see the bridge,
Miss the sea,
Lose a nailspin.
It’s all in the river.
A way. A lone. A last.
Althing. Awrong. Afrazorblade.
Cutspin.
One water.
We, the disunited together.
I remember.
Eyes closed, and man felted.
Men felled, by fallen men.
Rusted, rancid, ranked, so filed.
Cobb’s Arm, and dill do,
Because the old man dildidn’t,
At least for some time,
Sorrow from being in yesterday’s morrow, sans broken hearted —
Or was it cancer? —
Deathcut
— And he?
Unknown —
Tothechase, spin.
A finished book undone to incompletion.
Historical pickle, all along the Fraser.
Bridge by Trin,
All’s willed that didn’t end, yet.
This year, Yuletide seaspin.
Far along Lee’s is twice lease,
Once fleased, two stories,
One fire.
No time, zero might.
The ship’s center, fire;
1,948 reasons the ship’s asucker,
Not a war, “silly Billy,” but a flood.
Un deux water, and my fire still burns.
Or was it 1,827 reasons?
A dishwater here,
A saltwater there.
A burrito in the round,
A bruschetta on the crust.
A beer toasted mopside.
Spinrewatt,
What’s when, when when’s now then, and the future’s been passed,
and where’s where where here, and there, and everywhere summate self-similarly?
Oh Canadas, asunder in Summer,
Ocean to ocean, fire by day, photon echoes by night.
A tendernest.
A ten her lost,
Or more,
Nowspin.
I remember all.
And there cons on tour,
The contours through grandma’s BS.
A howdy Romanian Chișinău,
and a tall Kyiv;
Fire-tears salted by Sun.
Tricky Limey to Genes,
Ashen Terrs Tabis said Sam you am, a “real man,”
El ign, yourself with Greece,
“I can’t do this.”
La car no vale, veil? Known.
Morgoth’s alter ego,
MyLAN slow in stone, Starbucks, and polizei,
Lions on safari, by stone and cobble.
Nyaan bread, quarter onion, and a Turkish espresso.
Sir, a One a China is unwell in a-relations, eh.
And others push the cart out the door, a gift.
Thenspin.
I remember all with horrible eyes.
Do you remember the owl?
Hollow-site-buy-light.
Garden-trite-my-wight.
I dug, dig, Doug,
You lass, alas, -las,
I am;
There four:
I, thou, we, it; see?
Spin.
Photo by Scott Jacobsen on Unsplash
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/01
Holocaust survivor and hotelier Severyn Ashkenazy recounts his family’s prewar comfort in Tarnopol (now Ternopil, western Ukraine), their survival while hiding for roughly twenty months in a rural cellar, and a lifelong commitment to art and philanthropy. Ternopil’s total population was about 50,000 on the eve of World War II (1939), and is estimated at ~225,000 in 2022. The city’s Jewish population was about 18,000–18,600 around 1939–June 1941; after the war, only about 139 Jews from those present when the Germans arrived were recorded as surviving in the city, with a further few hundred surviving via evacuation to the USSR or military service.
In conversation with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Ashkenazy argues a thesis (his interpretation) that centuries of “anti-Judaism,” later branded antisemitism, were sustained by church authority; he points specifically to Vatican conduct during and after World War II. That critique reflects Ashkenazy’s viewpoint and the argument developed in his book Swords of the Vatican: Reflections of a Witness to Evil. He contrasts public stereotypes with the Jewish communal ethics of tzedakah (charitable obligation) and learning, notes the widely discussed phenomenon of outsized Jewish contributions in science, and emphasizes education and historical memory. The discussion also touches on Ukraine’s wartime realities and evolving definitions of Jewish identity. These are framed as Ashkenazy’s perspectives; readers should examine the underlying evidence and counterarguments directly.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with Severyn Ashkenazy to discuss antisemitism from both historical and lived perspectives. To set the stage: during World War II, how did your family live before the war, and then during the early parts of the war?
Severyn Ashkenazy: My family was comfortable—financially and socially. My mother was a pianist who spoke several languages; my father was a food chemist with strong mathematical skills and ran an extensive delicatessen and distribution business in Tarnopol (now Ternopil). Before the war, Tarnopol was a regional center near the Soviet border. (Germany invaded Poland on September 1, 1939; the Soviet Union invaded from the east on September 17, 1939.)
We were comfortable enough that, in 1937, a leading Polish chocolatier (as I recount in Swords of the Vatican) tried to recruit my father for a Chicago chocolate venture. My father—also a Talmud student—decided against it, believing we should not risk a stable life. Two years later, there was nowhere to go. When German forces occupied Ternopil on July 2, 1941, mass violence against Jews followed, the ghetto was established that year, and deportations to Bełżec and mass shootings at sites like Petrykiv (Petrykowo) occurred in 1942–1943. Of roughly 18,000–18,600 Jews present as the Germans arrived, only about 139 were recorded in the city after liberation in mid-1944, with a few hundred more surviving via evacuation or service in the Red Army. My immediate family—my father, mother, brother, and I—survived as an intact unit, hidden in a peasant family’s cellar for about twenty months.
Jacobsen: For twenty months, you were hidden in a peasant family’s cellar. As a child, what were the psychological challenges you faced? And, for the adults, in hindsight, what ethical challenges did they face in that context?
Ashkenazy: As a child, because my parents were with us, I did not feel unsafe. They gave me the security a child needs. I did feel fear and anxiety. My mother was always with my brother and me, and my father joined us whenever he could. In the final eight months of our time hiding, we were in a cellar—more precisely, a cramped space under a basement—roughly six by twelve feet. Eventually, eight people lived there around the clock. Of those eight, six survived. They were hiding with us.
Jacobsen: What about your brother’s passion for art?
Ashkenazy: That passion came from my father, and his love came from his father. My parents’ major customers included the local aristocracy and the army. When they could not pay their bills, they sometimes sent a steward to settle accounts in kind. If there was no money, they brought a piece of art or an antique.
I remember one time we ended up with an old halberd—an approximately eight-foot pole weapon with an axe-like blade at the top, used historically in warfare. In French, it is hallebarde; in Polish, halabarda. Those were the sorts of objects that came through the door. When my father returned from Vienna, he realized my grandfather was an Orthodox Jew—not Hasidic, but traditionally observant as many were at that time—and he discovered a trove of paintings depicting Jesus and Mary, including Madonna-and-Child images. He recognized that we had, almost by accident, a collection. That is how we became art collectors.
My father always loved art. I have a photograph of my parents in a small apartment in Orléans, France, where they ultimately escaped communist-controlled territory. Behind them, you can see unframed paintings and the piano. This was part of my brother’s and my life, as it was theirs.
Art became something we pursued. When my father became comfortable again, he would sponsor an artist, and one of them painted my mother. His name was Oliver Foss; he was, at one point, well known. His brother was the composer Lukas Foss. Oliver later taught at UCLA, which is how I ended up at UCLA—because of him. That is where the art came from. In a way, we were forced into becoming collectors.
Jacobsen: In my interviews about the current war in Ukraine, certain myths fall away when one scratches the surface. Reconstruction, for example, does not wait for the last shot to be fired; it begins as soon as the first bombs land. Forms of violence—sexual violence among them—become weaponized in war, but they existed beforehand in less concentrated forms. With that analogy in mind, in European societies after World War I but before World War II, where did you observe antisemitism—perhaps in “lighter” forms, yet still persistent?
Ashkenazy: You are not touching on something new. Before the 1870s and 1880s, the phenomenon was commonly referred to as anti-Judaism. The term “antisemitism” was popularized in 1879, and, despite the literal root “Semite,” it came to be used almost exclusively for hatred of Jews.
Antisemitism has been a problem for roughly two millennia. Call it anti-Judaism if you prefer; in many respects, that is more accurate. Much of it arose in religious contexts. The antisemitism of the last 1,500 years, in my view, must be laid chiefly at the feet of the Catholic Church. There is no doubt in my mind. People could not always say so openly because they were afraid. Church-backed institutions exercised immense power, and persecution could be deadly. The Spanish Inquisition’s last execution occurred in 1826, and inquisitorial structures persisted into the nineteenth century in various forms. There were sermons, edicts, and pogroms inspired or tolerated by the clergy. We should place responsibility where it belongs, while acknowledging that intensity and forms of hostility varied by era and place.
It began as a religious contest and evolved into a centuries-long anti-Semitic movement. From there, it equated to hatred. Hatred is as old as humanity. In the Bible, Cain and Abel: one brother envied the other and killed him. That is a primitive, early example. Then came religious fanaticism, conquests, and the persecution of those who did not believe as others did—and you have antisemitism. It is as simple as: “My God is better than your God.”
Antisemitism is not something that needs formal instruction; once it starts, it can become instinctive, passed from generation to generation. It is hatred. It exists within us, waiting to be unleashed. Once authorized, the worst human instincts surface.
You asked about Ukraine today—this is what we see. When hatred is unleashed, you release our worst instincts. What do you get? Pain, rape, death, torture, hunger—everything. But you must ask: where did it start? Who promoted it?
Even today, the Pope refers to a political leader in the West Bank as a “messenger of goodwill.” Yet that man is a killer who calls for eliminating Jews, citing verses from the Qur’an. Who was Muhammad? In my view, an illiterate wanderer who created stories to escape an older wife, disappearing for weeks at a time. Nonsense. But people believed him. Of course, they believed him. His wife would have been embarrassed that her husband had multiple partners for years, so he became a prophet. And this legacy persists.
When we were children in the ghetto, we were told the last place to seek refuge was the Church. They would call the Gestapo. If our parents were gone, they might baptize us and keep us. There is a letter from Pius XII to a bishop in France, who asked if Jewish children should be returned after the war. The answer was: not if they were baptized. They belonged to the Church.
So, if you analyze it, the Church bears primary responsibility. As children, we thought, “Pretend we are brothers, and they will help us.” But they would not. The couple who saved us were decent, but we paid them. It was a business transaction. They were kind, yes, but their hearts were not the only factor—their pockets mattered, too.
Jacobsen: Have there been individuals within the Church who acted on a legitimate moral basis to counter this long history?
Ashkenazy: This is almost a joke. Out of hundreds of thousands of priests—today perhaps a million clergy and, with nuns, many more—the Church points to possibly two thousand who suffered, were killed, exiled, or tortured by the Nazis. Statistically, that is almost nothing. One percent would be ten thousand. Two thousand is two-tenths of one percent. And we do not even know why all of them were killed. Some may have been anti-Nazi for other reasons.
The Church plays this game: when accused of complicity, it points to Father So-and-So as an example. One man out of billions of Christians. It is ridiculous. Of course, some individuals could not live with what they saw, but who truly protested?
In 1941 or 1942, the government in Vichy France—Marshal Pétain, Laval, and others—asked the Vatican whether Nazi laws against Jews conflicted with Christian teaching. The answer from bishops and cardinals was that there was no conflict. That is documented. It was reported in the work of the International Catholic-Jewish Historical Commission. So, for the Pope to say he did not know what was going on is false. He knew.
Pope Pius XII was not neutral. He enabled Hitler. After his death, a book published by his close confidante revealed details. They knew everything. That is the reality we are left with.
And then, consider the refusal to recognize Israel. Israel declared independence in 1948. The Vatican, the last major central authority to do so, recognized Israel only in 1993—forty-five years later. That delay says everything. The Vatican had even complained to President Roosevelt about Jewish plans to establish themselves in Palestine, warning it would “sadden the Pope” if it were allowed.
If you study the record, you find blood on the Church’s hands from the beginning. In antiquity, Church leaders such as the bishop of Milan and John Chrysostom in Constantinople incited violence against Jews. Forced conversions and expulsions accompanied these campaigns. If you look carefully at history, the blame must be placed where it belongs.
And today, the Vatican has not fundamentally changed. During the Second World War, the Vatican did not aid the Jews; on the contrary, it was, in my view, Hitler’s partner. Yet when the Nazis needed assistance, the Vatican and allied channels were there. Adolf Eichmann, for example, was able to obtain a Red Cross passport and a Vatican-issued travel document, part of the so-called “ratlines” that helped Nazi fugitives escape Europe. Many fled to South America or the Middle East, where some later served as military advisers in wars against Israel.
If you look into it, what you find is shame. Shame on people. I say “people” because 2.6 to 2.8 billion are Christians, and 2.1 billion are Muslims—humanity’s shame.
So, if you ask about antisemitism and do not examine the role of the Church, you have missed the point. It is like blaming one shooter for killing two people in Washington without asking where the ideology that fueled him came from. Where did it come from? Either the Church or the state. There is nowhere else to look.
Have you ever had a serious discussion with an Islamist? With a Muslim? With a believing Muslim? Many defend their faith, but rarely in a serious way. Have you sat down with one?
Jacobsen: It depends. I have sat with Sufis and Quranists, some of whom are highly educated cosmologists. But Islamists, no. I have not sat with one, though I am sure that would be an educational experience. There is a particular psychology to fundamentalism.
Ashkenazy: I have read the Qur’an in three languages because I could not believe its absurdities. Since I do not read Arabic, I read it in Polish, French, and English. I keep copies next to my chair. One was abridged—still more nonsense. I have annotated another completely, pencil in hand. If you force yourself, and you are writing, you should do the same.
We already know what the Church thinks. I have friends—one is Casey Olderman, a prominent American actor. He and his wife have been my friends for a long time, even before she married him.
During the Second World War, did you hear that the Church lifted a hand to save Jews? Of course, here and there, a family saved ten Jews, especially children. But did you also hear that the Church actively helped Nazis? That is the part people leave out.
And today, what do we see? After the killing of 1,200 Jews and the taking of 250 hostages, no great sorrow came from the Vatican. Who takes hostages in the 21st century, other than criminals or warlords? Savages. We are dealing with savages.
No one stands when presented with secular codes—the Napoleonic Code, the Magna Carta, the Constitution. People may respect them in theory, but they do not rise to their feet. But when the Torah is carried in synagogue, every Jew rises, even if he does not know why. At the age of four, I was instructed to blow a kiss toward the Torah. This matters. We listen to the law.
Who knows? I will ask you a few questions, and you will see how ignorant we are about the subject, because either no one dares to speak, or no one cares. What is the most critical law in Judaism?
Jacobsen: No idea.
Ashkenazy: It is more important than all the other 613 laws put together. Charity. You see? It is a law. Want to test it? Go to the nearby church dressed as a homeless man and ask the priest for $500. He will almost certainly say he has a hole in his roof, that he is collecting money himself before the winter. He will apologize, but he cannot help you. That is the standard answer.
Now go to a synagogue. The rabbi will call an Ashkenazi congregant and say, “My discretionary fund only allows me to give $100. Can I count on you for the rest?” And how can you say no to the rabbi? So the man receives his $500. That is the standard.
When I was in business, this was a daily occurrence. If not from this rabbi, then from another. They never asked for themselves, always for others. Jews are different. Non-Jews have no idea who Jews really are. All they see is, “Look at how much money the Jews gave to the University of Victoria or Vancouver.” To them, it just means, “They are rich.”
We thought they were rich. We are not rich. We are obligated to be charitable. It is not philanthropy—it is law. Have you ever visited UCLA, a public university?
Jacobsen: I have been to UC Irvine and Long Beach, but not UCLA, as far as I recall.
Ashkenazy: Look at the donors. Look at the names. Many are now Smith. They used to be Silverberg, now they are Smith. You can tell.
There are about two percent Jews in California, and yet roughly half of the donors to public universities—not Jewish ones—are Jewish. I mention this because the subject comes up constantly: “Jews have money.” Yes, on average, Jews may have more than some Americans, but we are not the richest people. The richest are not Jews. Jews are singled out as wealthy, and even more so because they give, and giving is the law.
But no one wants to see it this way. That is antisemitism. Jews give not because they wish to, but because they must. And they provide not only to Jewish causes, but also to non-Jewish ones. The world says, “They have so much money they do not know what to do with it, so they give it away.” That is the explanation outsiders use. The truth is: it is endless. We cannot stop.
And when a Jew does something shameful—Madoff, Epstein—we are furious. I would have killed the man myself. He did not need to commit suicide, but by his crimes, he shamed an entire people. We remember these men, and we are not happy. It irks us. Why did he not think of how his actions would harm the Jewish people?
We are angrier at Madoff and Epstein than non-Jews are. We are ashamed. But only Jews know this. No one else is interested—because God forbid anyone admit that this could be a good side of Jews.
I will soon publish a book called Jew, Who Are You? Because Jews do not know who they are. If I ask you—because you are a good man, curious, someone who wants to leave something behind, which is commendable—you are mine, you are my Jew. You must understand that: by doing good.
But if I ask you, “Why are you? Who is a Jew for you? What makes a Jew a Jew?”—most Jews themselves do not know.
Jacobsen: I once spoke with a child of Holocaust survivors, Amos Guiora, as part of this book project. He served in the IDF and did significant work on enablers, abuse, and related contexts. He made a strong legal point—because he is a jurist. He explained that the Israeli Supreme Court once tried to define what a Jew is, and to this day, no solid definition exists. There is only an acknowledgement that there are multiple definitions that different groups consider legitimate. So it remains a rhetorical question, a good one. It connects to your point about self-identification. It is a similar quandary, a similar conundrum.
Ashkenazy: Well, let us speak about Muslims for a while. How many Muslims are there in the world? About 2.1 billion—second only to Christianity, which has about 2.6 billion. Their numbers are rising. How many Nobel Prize winners have come from 2 billion people?
Jacobsen: I know Abdus Salam won one alongside Steven Weinberg, but not many. When I looked at this with a Jewish colleague, we noted that Jews make up about 0.2 percent of the world’s population but have earned a disproportionately large share of Nobel Prizes. Per capita, the rate is roughly 100 times higher than expected. For Muslims, I do not know the number.
Ashkenazy: The Jews? Of course. Roughly 25 to 26 percent of all Nobel Prizes in the sciences have gone to Jews—about 240 or 250 laureates—while today the global Jewish population is only 15 or 16 million. Compare that with Muslims: four Nobel Prizes in science. One laureate shared his award with two Jewish colleagues; another married his colleague’swidow and raised her children as Jewish. So, four from 2 billion. I mention this not to belittle anyone, but because the contrast is so striking. It gets repeated often, like Einstein being the only Jewish name many people remember. But the pattern tells you something about who Jews are. If you look at that, you see their law, their main law, their most important law: charity.
Two thousand years ago, the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (c. 37–100 CE) wrote about his people. In The Jewish War and Antiquities of the Jews, he noted that Jewish families placed extraordinary emphasis on educating and raising their children. For him to make such an observation meant he was describing a practice already deeply rooted in his time.
So Jews have long valued education. A Jewish family would not be a Jewish family if it did not strive to do everything possible to educate its children.
Yesterday, I was watching the news, and someone was interviewed about the current situation at Harvard and the many Jewish presidents and deans throughout its history. At one point, he claimed, “Forty percent of our professors are Jews, and close to thirty percent of students are Jews.” That was an exaggeration. In reality, Jewish representation at elite American universities has historically been high compared to the population size. At certain times in the late 20th century, Jews made up roughly 20–25 percent of Harvard’s faculty and student body, though today it is closer to 10–15 percent.
So how do you reconcile this with antisemitism? Antisemitism does not appear on a fixed date, nor does it vanish on one. When I came here in 1957, Harvard and other Ivy League schools had only recently abolished numerus clausus quotas that restricted Jewish admissions—a system in place for decades. Being a Polish Jew, I did not even consider applying. I attended UCLA, which I loved, and I am grateful that I did. But when one of my children proved to be a good student, I made sure he went to Harvard and secured strong letters of recommendation from the head of the parents’ association, who was a close friend.
Is the name Theodore Bikel familiar to you? He died in 2015. Bikel was a celebrated actor, folk singer, and activist, famous for playing Tevye in Fiddler on the Roof. He was also president of the American Jewish Congress at one point, though not of Harvard’s Parents’ Association—that may have been a different Theodore altogether. Still, Bikel is often remembered in this broader cultural context.
I did everything I could to educate my children. My second one could not get into UCLA because he had not studied appropriately in high school. I sent him to a remedial school for a year so he could qualify for UCLA. It was that important to me that my children had piano lessons and every educational opportunity possible.
I did not always travel first class, but I used the money for their education—whether it was to learn Spanish, French, or Chinese, or to send them abroad to study in Shanghai or Moscow.
And so did my friends. Among my Jewish peers, I was not unusual. It is striking today, as I spend more time with my generation, when we gather for music evenings or social occasions, how deeply this shared value of education and culture remains.
I know, for instance, two people who cannot wait to tell everyone that their children are at Princeton or Harvard, or that they study medicine, or that they are doctors or lawyers. It is amusing—they steer the conversation so they can boast.
And you do not find this in many societies. But you do in the Jewish world, because education is that important. You still see it today. Look at Israel: 7.5 million Jews, and their laboratories and universities are thriving.
Germany has three top universities, because before World War II, it was the intellectual center of the world. Germany, with a population of over 80 million, has three universities ranked among the world’s top 100. Israel, with 7.5 million Jews, also has three in the top 100.
I was not even looking for this. Someone once asked me to check Israeli universities for possible study abroad. I checked, and yes—three appear among the world’s top 100. Interesting. Apart from the Catholic University of Leuven in Belgium, you do not find another Catholic university in the top 100. What a world.
Soon, I will publish Jew, Who Are You? I want Jews to appreciate who they are. But that is not what you are seeking here. You are looking for antisemitism. We can cover that in a separate interview if that interests you. Right now, I have many fires going, and I want to make sure none of the eggs in each pan get burned.
Jacobsen: Soft-boiled or hard-boiled? Different timing for each plate.
Ashkenazy: The question that could interest you is one I can speak to with some measure of knowledge, going back 60 or 70 years. I was part of a family and a milieu where these subjects were discussed among friends. It was not the central topic, but it came up often. So if you ask me questions, I can respond. If not, I will digress, as the mind sometimes insists.
I must set this in context: I am an individual. I cannot live in every era or in every country. Human academic pursuits are too varied and too deep for any one person. I can have conversations with experts.
Whether their expertise stems from lived experience, scholarship, or serving as representatives of institutions, they can speak accurately on behalf of their communities. By gathering these perspectives, I can provide a clear and concise delivery system in conversation, synoptic in presentation. That too has value, even if it is not strictly academic.
So tell me: what would you like me to speak about? Ask me the questions that interest you. If I know the answers, I will gladly tell you.
Jacobsen: Suppose you were to examine the interactions between different groups—how they have treated Jewish friends, colleagues, co-citizens. The real question becomes: what sustains the view of Jews as “the other,” and what allows the transition to seeing Jews simply as human beings, with the same dignity, respect, and rights as everyone else? Following from that: what works, and what does not?
Ashkenazy: It is an all-encompassing question because you are asking how people live together in a community without feeling separated. Well, education. My sense is that hate—antisemitism—is not instinctive. It is directed for a reason. Education can erase barriers to a great extent. But education is not one-directional. There is no prescription for “uneducation.” Education is what we have learned—not only in schools, which have existed in their modern form for only a few centuries, but long before that. For most of the last three or four thousand years, if you could afford education, it came from parents or from religion. Religion took over the role of education. It was about what they taught you.
And what did they teach? Often, to benefit the institution itself. Eventually, religion became a self-serving organization. That holds across traditions: among the most orthodox Protestants, among Muslims, certainly among Catholics, and also among Jews. If you are what is called a Haredi Jew—an ultra-Orthodox Jew—you are bound within a closed educational system. The same is true of ultra-Orthodox Muslims, who at the extreme may kill for their faith. The same occurred in Christianity, less so after the Protestant Reformation, but very much so in earlier Catholicism.
Now we have a large portion of the world divided by what people are taught, and of course, they end up believing it. You ask about antisemitism—well, look around. Competing religions, in their struggle for legitimacy, often decided that to win a place in the sun, they had to push out or eliminate the others. Each of the major Western religions has at times claimed to be the one true faith, insisting that all others must convert.
Hence, the attacks on Jews began some 1,600 to 1,800 years ago. The result is that a people who might number 150 to 200 million today instead number around 15 million, on what some describe as their “last legs.”
During Roman times, Jews were as many as 8 million out of a global population of perhaps 250 to 300 million—about 3 percent of the world’s people. They were more numerous than the Romans themselves, who counted roughly 5 million citizens.
In the post-Roman world, you see Portugal, Spain, France, Italy, and Romania. If you add those populations together, 5 million Romans gave rise to hundreds of millions of descendants. The Jews, on the other hand, kept shrinking because of continual persecution.
It is almost impossible to stop the persecution of Jews because it is not embedded in the traditions of others to defend them. Once one wave of persecution ends, another emerges—sometimes two, three, or four generations later. Look at the map: the Jews often do not seem to stand a chance. You can hardly find Israel on it.
Look at the 1947 United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine, which proposed a Jewish state and an Arab state. Have you seen it? I encourage you to. It is as if someone tried to sell you a condominium with the kitchen on the sixth floor, the living room in the cellar, the desert as the bedroom, and hallways connecting them in broken pieces. That is what they offered the Jews.
If you study the map, you see that what was proposed was unacceptable to everyone. The Jewish state was divided into three noncontiguous areas, easily cut off and eliminated. That Israel survived is miraculous. No one expected it to. One glance at the map shows it was not defensible, not manageable, and barely governable.
And remember, this was thirty years after the Balfour Declaration of 1917 had promised British support for a Jewish homeland. Theodor Herzl, the father of modern political Zionism, had earlier travelled across Europe in the late 19th and early 20th century seeking support. He met emperors, sultans, popes, and politicians. None gave him what he wanted. The Sultan of the Ottoman Empire was hospitable but refused land. The German Kaiser gave him nothing. The Pope told him bluntly, “You did not recognize our Lord; we cannot recognize you.” He added that if Jews ever had a state, the Church would try to proselytize them out of existence.
The English betrayed them. The French betrayed them. If you read the record, it is remarkable. From the beginning, the idea of a Jewish state was under siege. Since Herzl proposed it in the 1890s, Zionism faced hostility. And since Israel’s actual founding in 1948, the state has been besieged in one form or another.
The most prolonged siege in recorded history, incidentally, was not in Israel but in Ceuta, a Spanish city in North Africa, where Muslim forces pressed intermittently for centuries. Israel, however, lives in a state of siege to this day.
The most prolonged continuous siege in history lasted about 30 to 32 years. But the Jews have lived under siege, in a broader sense, for more than 150 years in the modern era. And then you read this nonsense—“They will recognize Palestine.” What is Palestine? Who are these people?
What do they teach their children? Can they form a country of their own? They are Egyptians, Syrians, Saudis, Iraqis, Lebanese—you name it. Do you know how large Libya is? About a hundred times the size of Israel or Gaza. And what is the population within a thousand kilometres? Around 7.4 million. So why can’t they relocate their brothers and sisters if safety is the issue? Instead, they fight among themselves and against the Jews and Egyptians alike.
And then, the money. Can you imagine a billion dollars a year being poured into this? You would think most of that money would come from their brothers and sisters. But no. Saudi Arabia gives about $100 million a year—hardly generous, considering that is roughly what the Saudi crown prince spends annually on his private jet. That is the only substantial Muslim contribution to UNRWA, the United Nations agency that supports Palestinian refugees.
Where is Yemen? Where is Sudan, where hundreds of children die every day? Of course, no Jews are involved there, so the world stays quiet. But with Jews, they are suddenly the villains—genocide, they say.
Can you imagine someone with a high school degree, never mind a PhD, calling this genocide? They are out of their minds. We know what genocide is. By misusing the word, they pollute its meaning. They risk making the Holocaust meaningless by cheapening the term “genocide.”
Imagine, for a second, that Iceland attacked Canada. How long would it take before Iceland was reduced to a parking lot?
Jacosben: They do not even have an army
Ashkenazy: Yet, the response would be overwhelming. Or take Puerto Rico—if Puerto Rico attacked the United States, it would be a parking lot the next day.
But in the Middle East, in the 21st century, you have supposedly civilized people taking hostages—children, women, the elderly. That is gangster behaviour, kidnapping for ransom. Sometimes even gangsters fail at that. And yet this is tolerated? It is impossible to accept.
But the Jews—wow, the Jews are attacked. “They killed 50,000?” Well, let us see who these 50 or 60,000 are. First of all, they were forewarned that the area was unsafe and would be bombed or attacked. They could have moved.
Second, many of these people protect the gangsters, the Hamas fighters, if you will. They protect them and stay where they are because they want to. Their lives are so bleak that they prefer to die as martyrs, believing they will be promised heaven. That idea sustains them. And if they are desperate to feed their families, someone will take advantage of that desperation.
Jacobsen: So, within that political lens—people seeing the Jew as “the other” and trying to expand the moral circle to achieve more inclusive dignity, respect, and ethical consideration—what do you think?
Ashkenazy: This is one man’s opinion: I believe it is too late to seek genuine reconciliation—an intelligent reconciliation—between Jews, Christians, and certainly Muslims. For Muslims, reconciliation would mean Jews leaving Israel, surrendering. At best, they would allow Jews to survive as a minority under Muslim rule, as has often been the case in the last 800 years.
In my opinion, the differences are irreconcilable. That leads either to the disappearance of the Jews or to their confinement somewhere so they no longer exist as Jews. Because to the primitive mind, the Jew is unacceptable. The very idea of the Jew is an impasse.
Jean-Paul Sartre explained antisemitism as envy, which can bring you to kill the person you envy. That theme is in the Bible—Cain and Abel. Envy is at the root. A Jew is seen as a foreign body.
I know this from Poland. Even today, because I speak Polish fluently, most non-Jews I meet there say to me, “Your father was Jewish, but not your mother?” In other words, before they can befriend me, they want to make sure I am not fully Jewish. That happens invariably. So I know who I am dealing with.
I once invited a professor of history from a major university to dinner—twice—before I realized he was a learned individual with a degree. I joke when telling the story that you can get a PhD through your brain or through your ass. Just sit long enough, and you will get it. I know that for sure now.
But this is only part of my experience. It is not that I do not have phenomenal, devoted friends who are not religious and not Jewish in Poland. My closest friend there was a Frenchman from an intelligent family. His father was the Chief Justice of the commercial court.
That was his son. We were friends until he died. I even helped his daughter when she wanted to learn the hotel business. To this day, she is like a child of mine. So yes, there are close friendships. But as a group—for the vast, vast, vast majority—no.
It will not happen. There is a barrier. You cannot see it, you cannot even understand what the barrier is. Jews have a great deal to offer, and they are more than willing to share it. When I say they have a lot to offer, they are, to a great extent, the intelligentsia of the Western world.
Maxim Gorky, the Russian writer, once said that whenever he met an intellectual in Tsarist Russia, that person was almost always a Jew. He wrote it down. And he was not an antisemite. He understood Jews were not a danger but a benefit.
So, what is the preeminent profession of Jews?
Jacobsen: I would say law or physics—teachers of law and physics.
Ashkenazy: Teachers. My daughter is a teacher. I am proud. She has a master’s degree from Columbia and a BA from UCLA. I am pleased because she is a teacher.
And if it were not for Jewish women teachers, women in America might have stayed hidden. Jewish women represented a significant share of women teachers in the United States during Truman’s time. The world does not know it. Why would they?
Did you know Columbus was Jewish? No? You see? Why are we hiding it? Jews always suspected he was Jewish, but we did not have certainty. Now we do. It is widely reported—though historians still debate it—that Columbus may have had converso ancestry, that he received financing from conversos, Jews who had converted under pressure, and that he took persecuted Jews with him. That is how perhaps a dozen or more ended up in the Americas. For centuries, Jewish financiers and merchants contributed to exploration and trade, though this rarely appears in schoolbooks.
And of course, people eventually agreed Jesus was Jewish. But not everyone accepts it. If he ever existed, he was a rabbi stirring trouble. In Poland, a lawyer once told me, “I can accept that Jesus was Jewish, but not Mary, his mother.” Because in Poland, Mary is considered the Queen of Poland. For him, it was unacceptable that she be Jewish. And this came from a highly educated man.
What do you do with this? So—this is what you have. We are at an impasse. Unless we surrender—which the world may one day insist upon—because for Jews, life is more important than our own country. It is. The most important thing is life. We have no paradise waiting for us after death. And certainly our wives would forbid us a harem, if you think about it. We do not have compensation in the afterlife.
So if you ask me, reconciliation is impossible. Maybe when there are only a couple of million Jews left, and they are all Orthodox, they will end up confined to Brooklyn or some small town in Israel. That will be the end of it. We are not wanted.
Would you believe that in 1938, at the Évian Conference, when Jews were being persecuted, outlawed, beaten, killed, and pursued, none of the 32 countries represented moved a finger to help? Not one.
Churchill could have called the New Zealand prime minister—who was part of the British Commonwealth—and suggested taking in 100,000 Jews. He did not. Roosevelt could have called any Latin American country and offered trade incentives in exchange for accepting Jewish refugees. He did not. On the contrary, in 1939, the ship MS St. Louis, carrying more than 900 Jewish refugees, was turned away from American and Canadian ports. It was forced back to Europe under the shadow of warships in the North Atlantic. Many of its passengers later perished in the Holocaust.
So this is what we had then. Why would it have changed today?
And now the world blames Jews as perpetrators. Why is the world as a whole not saying: “We will come and force you, so-called Palestinians, to release the hostages—or face consequences”? Instead, they accuse Jews of cruelty while hostages are killed one by one.
Jacobsen: I have not heard that. No, the Jews should stop and then talk? Are they out of their minds? Just think about it. If you did this to Canada—yes, I repeat myself—are you kidding? If Iceland were to attack, you would throw everything you had at them. If you had no weapons, you would pummel them with rotten eggs. And the world would not say a word. Not a word.
You mentioned earlier that you do not see a rational reconciliation as possible anymore, particularly between Jews, Christians, and Muslims. What about a non-rational or emotional reconciliation—not only among the Abrahamic religions, but also with other major population centers in the world, like the Chinese? Or if the Vatican were to step in?
Ashkenazy: If the Vatican did what the King of Spain once did—intervened—it might reverse matters. But they will not. They need this hatred. The absurdity of religion itself prevents them from making such a move. The Vatican created and sustained antisemitism. I am writing a book on this irreconcilability. Almost finished.
And when I reread it for corrections, I cannot believe we Jews are still here. Literally everyone has tried to kill us. At one point, we almost disappeared. If it had not been for Poland, we might have vanished five, six, or seven hundred years ago. Poland gave us a respite. They had the intelligence to see Jews were useful. They invited us in and gave us two to three hundred years of relative peace. That pause allowed Jewish life to stabilize and endure.
Then, of course, the Russians began massacres again centuries later. And they have not stopped.
So when you read history, it is astonishing that we are still here. The King of England—Edward I—expelled the Jews in 1290. (You mentioned 1060, but it was 1290.) Before that, Jews had lived in France, in places like Poitiers, doing well. England invited them, and they contributed to the country’s wealth. Then, as always, they were turned on.
And then they threw us out. For centuries, Jews were barred. They were then accepted back in the mid-17th century, under Cromwell, mainly due to economic necessity.
Do you know that England has never formally repealed the Edict of Expulsion of 1290, issued under Edward I? On the books, technically, it was never rescinded. The King of Spain, however, in 1992—on the 500th anniversary of the Alhambra Decree of 1492—apologized to the Jews. He invited them back and offered Spanish citizenship to any Jew who could prove Sephardic ancestry. It was not easy to document, but they accepted applications.
That was an apology. Now, Jews in Israel will tell you there was also a curse. At the end of the 15th century, rabbis pronounced a curse on Spain for expelling the Jews. That curse, they say, was only lifted in 1992 with the apology. And after that, Spain began to recover economically. Few people talk about this. Jews are afraid to say it, and non-Jews would never give credit to Jews for Spain’s renewal. But if you look at Europe, Spain has been stagnant for centuries. Now it is doing better—paying its debts and moving forward. Coincidence? Maybe. But interesting.
Jacobsen: What about this dual-loyalty myth? The trope that Jews, wherever they are, somehow harbour loyalty both to their host state and to an outside state, meaning they cannot be trusted—whether they live in a place of respite like Poland or in a place of persecution like Weimar Germany?
Ashkenazy: I would invite you to look at the actual record. The most important law for Jews is charity. Did I mention that to you? Yes, charity.
Now compare: look at Catholic schools, universities, or a Catholic church. Or look at USC, which was initially a Protestant—specifically Methodist—school. Look at who the donors are. Jews send their children there. Proportionately, their children tend to serve in the army, often as officers, due to their education. This myth of dual loyalty ignores reality.
However, examine the facts and draw your own conclusion. Jews comprise approximately 1.8% of the American population. Find out how many serve in the police force or the army—you will see they outperform their numbers in service to the country.
They also support non-Jewish institutions to a considerable extent. Just look at them: they serve in the army, they serve in the police, they serve in politics. Even when they are wealthy, they give their time. They do not serve to enrich themselves. Jewish governors are not Trumps. They leave office poorer than when they entered. The idea of using public office to enrich themselves would not even cross their minds. Look at them—how devoted they are.
They teach. And yes, they are Zionists. They are Zionists, but they do not make much money in Israel. Israelis know that at any time, what has been happening for the last 1,600 years could happen again—in Canada or the United States—any time.
It almost happened in the United States. Hitler himself said he learned from the United States how to handle the Jews. That is what he said.
So when you ask if Jews are loyal, the answer is: they are faithful. They are not saints—you have the Maddows and you have the crazies. They do not physically kill anyone, but we are not proud of them.
Every time a Jew does something wrong, all Jews feel ashamed. It is a kind of collective guilt. We all apologize. But we are people. And we are highly educated—proportionally, among the most educated communities. Take the Fairfax District here in Los Angeles. It is mainly Jewish, middle-class, or lower-middle-class. Many people there live off their Social Security checks.
Yes, Jews have gained wealth, but contrary to myth, they are not the wealthiest group in America. Still, if you look at the 25 most prominent philanthropists in the United States, how many are Jews? Out of the top 25, about 12 are Jewish. And how many Muslims? Zero. You see the point.
And these Jewish philanthropists are not necessarily the wealthiest people, but they give the most. That is the difference.
So when you ask if Jews are loyal, I say yes. In Canada, for example, there are around 350,000 to 400,000 Jews—about one percent or less of the population. They are Canadians. They are loyal.
I have cousins in Canada. One of them is the Dean of Linguistics at Columbia. How many Jewish professors are there at the University of Toronto, one of the world’s top universities? I do not know, but it is worth checking. Given the small size of the Jewish population, their representation in academia is notable.
It would be an interesting exercise, even for you. Take McGill, take the University of Toronto, the University of British Columbia in Vancouver—check how many Jewish professors they have. Remember, Jews are only about one percent of the Canadian population. See how many professors come from that one percent. See who the philanthropists are. That would tell you something about loyalty.
Look at the teachers. If my daughter had not inherited some income from her late mother, she could not have afforded to be a teacher in New York. Teaching does not pay. And yet, Jews still choose that path. That is loyalty. Because, believe me, if she had opened a liquor store, she would make much more money than teaching.
Jacobsen: What about the relationship with non-Abrahamic populations? For example, with Chinese or Indian communities?
Ashkenazy: Yes. I went to Shanghai. My son studied at Fudan University. He is fluent in Chinese—that is my Jewish pride, I must admit.
I visited Shanghai several times. During the war, the Chinese gave Jews free entry. The Jews ended up in Harbin, in northeast China. Harbin became a major center for Jewish refugees, mainly from Russia. And the Chinese treated them with respect.
My son was in a class of foreigners, and when his teacher—a woman—learned he was Jewish, she invited him to her home to meet her daughter. That is how much regard they had.
And did you know that at one point, a Polish Jew became a general in China? For twenty years, he played an important role, working closely with the leadership of the time. No one talks about it. In the 1910s and 1920s, he advised the Chinese government and influenced policy. China did relatively well under his guidance.
But these things are not advertised. You will not read it in the papers, whether from Jews or non-Jews. Just like with Columbus, people will not tell you the Jewish angle. But I am of another age, and I have to say it.
So, China—do you know who translated the Talmud into Chinese?
South Korea, they want to know. Many are becoming Christian or Catholic—about 30–35% of South Koreans now are—but they have also translated the Talmud. Why? Because they want to know why Jews are so smart.
South Koreans emerged from being colonized by Japan, pushed around by China, and exploited by the Western world. Now that they have built their own power, they look around and ask, “What do Jews read? What makes them so successful?” Their ambassador explained: “We figured Jews read the Talmud, so we’d better read it too.”
Almost no one knows this. Maybe a few thousand people care enough to know. But Jews themselves cannot even say it openly. If they did, they would be accused of bragging. Jews are expected to remain modest.
I once asked a friend of mine to read Cleveland’s—well, never mind that. Think about India. What about India? There is no antisemitism there. Few Jews live in India, but the Muslim world around them—Pakistanis and others—were taught to hate Jews. What does an Afghan know about Jews? Nothing. Jews left Afghanistan long ago. In Muslim countries, there are practically no Jews left. And you will not find a single Muslim university that ranks among the world’s best.
Do you know the two oldest universities in the world, known as universities? Let me tell you. You should pay me five cents per lesson. That is what education is for—teaching, including the learning of charity.
The University of Bologna, in Italy, dates to the 12th century. Then there is Oxford, founded in the 12th or 13th century. But earlier than these, two universities in the Muslim world are still operating. One is al-Qarawiyyin in Fez, Morocco, founded in the 9th century. The other is al-Zaytuna in Tunis, also from the 9th or 10th century. They are the oldest still operating. But in truth, their diplomas do not carry the same weight internationally. They are religious institutions, not centers of modern science.
Now, compare that with India. In the 5th century, India had one of the greatest learning institutions in the world: Nalanda.
Nalanda was truly a depository of some of the most precious documents of its time—arguably more precious than the Library of Alexandria. It was destroyed in the 12th century during a Muslim invasion. They burned it to the ground, along with other centers of learning.
Muslims did not exist in the 5th century, when Nalanda was established. That was in Gupta India. The destruction happened much later, around 1193, when Bakhtiyar Khilji invaded. Nalanda Mahavihara was wiped out. Today, India has created a new institution called Nalanda University, but it is not the same. Few people know this history.
I once told you—I read the Qur’an in three different languages. Yes, Jews do that. (Laughing)
So if you ask me, the cycle is the same: temporary admiration, then fear, then hatred and jealousy. That is what Jews encounter. People do not know who Jews are. I just finished a book—it should be printed by the end of the month, though it has been delayed. It is titled Jew, Who Are You? In it, I explain what a Jew is, what he has been taught for 3,000 years. I felt compelled to write it because Jews themselves do not know who they are, and non-Jews certainly do not.
Jacobsen: And in that light, what sustains the hatred?
Ashkenazy: Hatred continues. Sometimes there is temporary relief—“today’s Jews are not responsible.” But then the old accusations return. Jewish law is obvious: you cannot accuse the children of the crimes of their parents. Yet Jews are blamed for killing Jesus Christ across a hundred generations. It is absurd.
Look around—peasants in different countries raise their children from the age of six to work the fields, ensuring the inheritance and feeding the family. They are good farmers. But do not ask them to write a book. That is not their world.
The Jews, by contrast, uniquely—though not entirely uniquely—educated their heirs. European aristocrats did something similar: they had preceptors, music teachers, and dance teachers for their heirs. But for Jews, the education of children was central across the whole people, not just the elite.
Not necessarily all the children—just the heirs, so that the aristocracy could maintain governance. That tradition goes back thousands of years. But it was limited to aristocrats. Girls did not count. At best, they learned dance or manners.
The aristocrats taught their sons to inherit power—kings, czars, noble houses. But Jews, by contrast, are educated broadly. Józef Piłsudski, the general and president of Poland after World War I, once wrote that Jews were closest to the aristocracy precisely because they were educated. He valued the Jewish contribution and was one of the few Polish leaders to support the Jewish community openly.
Jacobsen: Yes, and alongside the aristocracy, the Church also had a role in education. It partnered with rulers to reinforce authority. Who, then, do you think has been most instrumental in combating antisemitism—and who in advancing it?
Ashkenazy: Certainly, the religions have been central—both in promoting antisemitism and in possessing the power to end it, if they would tell the truth. Perhaps the Vatican, facing Islam’s growing strength, might someday change. But Islam discourages critical education. In many places, children are taught only to recite the Qur’an by heart, drilled by semi-literate clergy.
And look at Christianity. Remember Martin Luther? At first, he hoped Jews would convert. When they did not, he turned to hatred, urging persecution. That is where Protestant antisemitism began. Few mention it, but it is written plainly in his words.
Yet, the Protestant Reformation also gave rise to some of the world’s most significant centers of learning. Look at Europe and the United States: Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, Oxford, Cambridge. These are Protestant institutions, or at least emerged from Protestant traditions. Protestantism aligned with knowledge rather than treating it as an enemy. That was progress.
The Catholic and Muslim institutions, by comparison, did not keep pace in higher learning. They remained tied to dogma rather than opening themselves to science.
One has to recognize this: the Vatican holds the key. Everyone else can try, but there are 2.6 billion Christians worldwide. Despite the Reformation, Protestants and Orthodox Christians still retain a respect for the Vatican. If the Vatican gave the signal, perhaps 1.6 billion Catholics and another billion Christians would follow. Tell the truth—do not invent stories. But knowledge is dangerous to both Islam and Christianity.
The Jews, however, have no such conflict. Whether the stories of God, Moses, and Sinai are legend or history, they are beautiful. Moses may not have been related to the Pharaohs, but someone like him surely existed. And monotheism—whether fact or legend—is meaningful. If you tell a rabbi you are an atheist, he will say, “That’s all right, you can still be a Jew.” You cannot be an atheist Catholic or Muslim, but you can be a secular Jew. Jewish identity is not contingent on belief.
The essence is education. From generation to generation, parents teach their children at all costs. No Jew would argue against it—except perhaps the ultra-Orthodox, who resist secular learning. But even there, children slip into the modern world through the internet.
Jacobsen: I’d like to turn to specific historical cases. Do you have commentary on the expulsion from England in 1290, or from Spain in 1492, or on the Soviet anti-cosmopolitan campaigns?
Ashkenazy: England, yes. The expulsion was in 1290 under King Edward I. It was economic. The monarchy and the Church were eager to acquire Jewish wealth. They decided that immediate confiscation was more important than long-term prosperity. Through decree, the Jews’ assets were seized. For 400 years, England stagnated financially—struggling with France, fighting on the continent and off it.
Cromwell, centuries later, realized that Dutch Jews had transformed Holland into a financial powerhouse through trade and finance, particularly with the Dutch East India Company. He saw the potential. So despite English antisemitism, he readmitted Jews in the mid-17th century—not out of love, but pragmatism. He knew Jews were good for finance and growth.
Jacobsen: And Spain in 1492?
Ashkenazy: That was Vatican-driven. First came the medieval Inquisition, which was not only against Jews but also against Christian groups the Church considered heretical—like the Cathars in southern France. They were extraordinary: women were equal, they lived communally, and they respected Jews. The Church fought them for 200 years, finally wiping them out. In a single day, a French prince’s army killed some 30,000.
Then came the Spanish Inquisition at the end of the 15th century, aimed first at conversos—Marranos, Jewish converts suspected of secretly practicing Judaism. And finally, in 1492, Ferdinand and Isabella issued the Edict of Expulsion under pressure from the Church. That was the end of Spanish Jewry’s Golden Age.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Severyn.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/30
James W. Gaynor is co-publisher of Pinfeather Press. His AIDS memoir, I’ll Miss You Later, is the subject of a documentary film by Annie O’Neil, to be released later this year. His most recent book, 40 Inappropriate Poems for Weddings + Funerals, is available on Amazon.
Henry David Thoreau was an American naturalist, essayist, poet, and philosopher. He is best known for his book Walden, a reflection upon simple living in natural surroundings, and his essay Civil Disobedience, an argument in favor of citizen resistance against an unjust state.
Nola Saint James, also known as Rabbi Dr. Jo David, is co-publisher of Pinfeather Press. Her most recent novel is Love at Midnight: A Regency Christmas Romantasy.
Michael E. Tigar is a human rights lawyer, activist, and law teacher. His memoir, Sensing Injustice: A Lawyer’s Life in the Battle for Change, and his collection of essays, Mythologies of State and Monopoly Power, are available.
David Bergman is the author, editor, or translator of some twenty books, his latest being Plain Sight. He lives in Baltimore with his husband, John Lessner. He can be reached at dbergman@towson.edu.
A roundtable moderated by Scott Douglas Jacobsen gathers James W. Gaynor, Nola Saint James (Rabbi Dr. Jo David), Michael E. Tigar, and David Bergman to probe poetry’s purpose and power. They link lyric energy and condensed language to civic courage, weaving Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience through Gaynor’s collection whose sales benefit the ACLU. Pinfeather Press’s collaborative design intersperses poems with commentary, recipes, and resources, foregrounding women’s voices and humor amid authoritarian drift. Tigar recounts courtroom uses of verse and history; Bergman warns that bullies fear language and beauty. The panel champions listening, action, and storytelling as resistant arts, inviting readers to read, organize, and support rights.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: All right, today we are here with four distinguished poets and writers: James W. Gaynor, Nola Saint James, Michael E. Tigar, and David Bergman. I want to start with an overview of everyone’s opinion, if they would like to share it: what is a poet, and what is the role of a poet?
David Bergman: A poet is a person who writes poetry. That is a straightforward answer, and it does not need to be more than that. But a poet is also someone trying to use language to convey something about the human spirit—the energy of the spirit, the energy of the person.
It is an odd thing for that energy to take the form of language. As with any artist engaged in a kind of transference—into painting or into music—the poet transfers energy into language. Because it is a transference of energy into language, it changes the language. It helps preserve what is best in the language, tries to eliminate what is worst in the language, and, I think, sets a long-term tone for the culture in which it exists.
Unfortunately, we have fallen short of this recently, if anything can be judged by the current administration’s use of language.
James Gaynor: To build on David’s point—something Nola and I were talking about not too long ago—poetry has a way of taking a word that is flat on a page and making music out of it. Poetry carries the music of language.
Sometimes, it is easier in a poem to hear the music and the poet’s voice. Emily Dickinson said she knew it was poetry if she felt “as if the top of my head were taken off.”
I do not go that far. But I do know that when I have a poem—or when I have encountered a poet I love—I hear a voice as I read. I listen to the voice.
There is something to that immediacy. What poetry does better than prose is to condense. Because it is concentrated into smaller pieces, you get a moment, a jolt of energy. That is part of the music of the word.
Nola Saint James: I have written poetry and had poetry published, alongside longer-form writing. One of my earliest memories is my father sitting me down—maybe I was five—and teaching me to recite the starting lineup of the Brooklyn Dodgers, before they moved to Los Angeles.
Back then, in baseball, the lineup was fixed. It had rules—just like poetry, or at least some forms of poetry. Saying the names had a cadence. The players had wonderful nicknames, such as Pee Wee Reese and Duke Snider. My father would say the names, and I would repeat them after him. It became an incantation.
It was not just a list of names. It was poetry in its most distilled form. That experience stayed with me all these years, and it has helped me, as a long-form writer, understand how few words we actually need to communicate ideas.
Michael E. Tigar: You know that I am a lawyer, and I speak to judges and juries. I find that extracts from poetry can effectively convey an image that the listener—the one who decides—is likely to retain.
Because poetry is, in a formal sense, bound by rules—choice of language, structure, rhythm—all the things we say make a poem.
So when I talk to a jury about a case in which 170 people have been killed in a bombing, and I say, “The poet says, the world has no such joy to give as that which it takes away”—that is a lie. When Yeats begins the poem by saying, Too long a sacrifice can make a stone of the heart. That is heaven’s part; our part to murmur name upon name, as a mother names her child, when sleep at last has come upon limbs that have run wild—that is true.
When we talk about the idea of just deserts, Byron wrote: The thorns which I have reaped are of the tree I planted; they have torn me, and I bleed. I should have known what fruit would spring from such a seed.
All of those are images that, at one time or another, in more than fifty years of talking to judges and juries, I have said out loud, because it is simply a better way of saying things. And then, of course, I meet someone like James Gaynor, who takes the whole of the present set of disasters and, combining the poet’s good sense with the impulse to mock and with a little twist, brings us this magnificent book, which I think got us here this evening.
Gaynor: Yes, it is. And Scott, this is actually the first time all four of us have spoken together. Up to this point, it has been a one-on-one situation.
The book came together as a collaborative effort—this is the team. In a way, it is sort of all Michael’s fault. When the FBI took me away at the Hands Off march, I had committed to join every protest march. When I came back, Michael and I were talking on Zoom.
I said, “Next, I’m going to have to chain myself to the White House gates. And then it’s kerosene—I’ll bring out my Zen monastery robes. I spent some time in a monastery, and I still have fond memories of it. I’ve got the gasoline too.”
Michael said, “Oh, please, please—you’re a poet. Write something.” And I said, “Okay.”
So I went back and wrote. For one thing, it was very dramatic. But I admit I always look for an excuse to wear my robes in public. The reason I am not a Zen monk, although I did try for about five years, is that I had a sudden moment of complete understanding: nobody looks fat in a robe.
I realized I was in it for the wardrobe and the accessories. It was time to get back to a different model. But there we have it.
Jacobsen: How long was this process—from Michael’s early suggestion to the final production?
Saint James: About six months. Yes, this came together very quickly. When you have a publishing company, you can make things happen, which is very lovely.
Jim and I were very fortunate to have set up Pinfeather Press a couple of years ago—initially to publish my work and some of his. Unfortunately, the traditional publishing industry is beginning to crumble. Today, if you get signed—and I am not talking about big names who get pushed to market in six months, but ordinary writers—it takes about two years for your book to reach the shelves.
But Jim and I, along with David and Michael, cannot sit around and wait two years. It is ridiculous. We are all past seventy, which is all I will say. We want to get the books out.
And so this was very uncomplicated. The longest part of bringing it together was the design. We have a designer we use for all our books.
She’s wonderful. Once we all agreed on how this should look and what it should be, we got it out. With print-on-demand today, you don’t have to commit to printing 5,000 books, and that makes a big difference.
The only glitch we encountered was when Jim sent me the original manuscript—all the quotes in the book were by men, except for those of Hannah Arendt. I looked at this and said, “At least 50 percent should be by women.” Also, all the people whose wonderful quotes we had were dead. So I said, “We should include some people who are alive, and at least 50 percent should be women.” That became my contribution. In the end, there were no men.
Gaynor: And we lost Hannah Arendt—my favourite quote. Michael, not even knowing this story, was quoting her words to me, and it turned out to be the one that didn’t make it in.
Tigar: Yes, but the idea of including quotes from women remained. Remember, we’re writing about an administration whose leadership probably thinks Joan of Arc was Noah’s wife.
Saint James: That is, unfortunately, very true. So, once we have the manuscript where we want it—and this has been true of our other books too—it usually takes about six months. It’s a swift timeline, and it works for us. I was so happy with this book because it’s such a beautiful production. Even though I had an issue with Jim’s poem about Fibonacci’s artichoke. In the back, I suggested to him that we add a note reflecting how food inspires us.
Jim had written, “Once the artichoke has served its purpose,” and I said, “But that isn’t correct. It should be, ‘Once the artichoke has been dipped in vinaigrette.'” Jim, being the poet, refused to change the poem. But we added an extra little section that included a colonial American vinaigrette recipe.
Gaynor: So it’s a revolutionary recipe. Vinaigrette that carries on. And Pinfeather Press, as we’ve evolved, has developed a couple of distinctive characteristics. For example, we always try to include books you might want to read after finishing whatever you’re reading.
In the novels that Jo writes, we include a glossary, because Regency Romance and 18th-century English slang can trip people up. And we also add recipes. I was once an editor at a national food magazine. Jo runs a test kitchen and is responsible for National Pickle Month in advertising.
We’re always curious about what our characters are eating, what that reflects, and whether our readers truly know what that food might taste like. I always remember my first novel that I tried to get published—it didn’t happen. However, I had a friend who sent it to William Morrow, and I received a lovely rejection letter from an editor named Bob Levine, who went on to praise the glories of Maria Callas’ expertise.
But I got a lovely letter from him saying, “There are two things I noticed about your manuscript. None of the doors ever seems to be completely closed. And you never miss a chance to ask for the recipe of whatever your character finds delicious.”
I was 21 at the time. Looking back, it was foreshadowing—much of what I still do.
Jacobsen: What I’m noticing with Pinfeather is that the structure of the book is also unusual. I’ve seen a couple of experimental presentations of books, but here you have a thorough commentary, and then interspersed throughout are full-page poems punctuating the narrative. You’ve got commentary on civil disobedience, critiques of government, and then these poems pocketed in between. Was there a rationale behind that, or was it more of an aesthetic decision?
Gaynor: Actually, both. David and I have talked about this, because one of the reasons—and pretty much the only reason—I go to poetry readings is to hear the poet’s actual voice. But what I’m more interested in is the backstory.
It’s not enough for me if the poet says, “The spider going down the drain in the sink is my mother.” Tell me why the spider is your mother, why it matters, and what the story is. The metaphors are there, but I want the backstory.
So, when Michael suggested I put a collection together, I pulled out my 1968 copy of Thoreau’s Essay on Civil Disobedience. I was looking at my underlinings, remembering, and realized I missed him. But more than that, I realized there was a story behind it.
David talked earlier about how poetry echoes down through the ages. Well, Thoreau’s essay has echoed this as well. It is eloquent, sometimes florid—too florid at times—but still beautiful. I still see references to it in The New York Times today.
That was part of the backstory I wanted to include. And I’ve already had three people write to me—emails, letters, notes—saying they were glad the essay was included, because they’d heard of it but never actually read it. It’s a beautiful text, and I think it enriches the entire project, especially in the way our team—David, Nola, Michael, and I—collaborated on it.
Bergman: Another way it works together is that people often miss the humour in Thoreau. Your poetry brings that humour out in his work. He begins with a very libertarian, almost anarchist stance, saying there should be no government at all. But then he steps back and says, “Well, that’s not quite my point.” He’s wonderfully funny in the tone of the essay, even while being serious. There’s something campy about it, and the poems highlight that quality.
Tigar: There’s an excellent Provençal restaurant somewhere near Cannes. It’s a buffet. You walk in and see things you’ve had before, as well as things you haven’t. You say, “Well, I’ve heard of that, but I’ve never tasted it. I’ve had that, but maybe it would go better next to this.”
That’s the salad bar theory of a poetry collection. You put it all together and let the reader sample and arrange. It’s a smart departure from Dylan Thomas, who once gave a famous reading at UCLA and said, “They’ve asked me to explain my poems before I read them. I never do that, because as soon as I begin, my mind drifts to something else—like if a hermaphrodite were also a schizophrenic, which half would you take?” So I prefer the salad bar theory.
Saint James: I really did not hear that, Michael. It’s very—well, I was going to say—Talmudic. The Talmud has a great deal to say about various categories of sex; I believe it identifies six or seven. This text dates back to around the 500s of the Common Era.
But yes, in preparing for tonight, I kept thinking about the Rita Rudner quote I used in the introduction: she said she wanted her tombstone to read, “I tried everything, nothing was easy.” When I wrote that introduction six or seven months ago, it meant one thing to me. Today, it means something very different.
With what we’re going through now in the United States—freedom of speech issues, and prominent voices not only being cancelled but also threatened in unprecedented ways—we are in a time when nothing is going to be easy. But that doesn’t mean we don’t do whatever we can.
Gaynor: And what we can do—and Scott, this is really the point that brought us all together—is this book. We have a sense that this is something we can do.
By ensuring that the profits from its sales—so far, modest—go to the ACLU, we’re making the book more than literature. When people buy and share it, it says: You are not alone, wherever you are. And you are doing something.
The ACLU is one of the few organizations in this country that has not caved. Ultimately, many of these battles will end up in the Supreme Court, which will determine whether we end up with a more institutionalized authoritarian state or weather a tough time.
Whatever happens, this book channels poetry into action. Buy it for $20.25, and the profits go to the ACLU. Somebody says no. Somebody says no kings. Somebody says freedom of speech. That’s action.
Bergman: Significantly, your copy of Thoreau dates from 1968, because that was the year he returned as an important voice in America through the anti-war demonstrations. And all of us who are now 70 or older feel that this moment echoes the anti-war atmosphere of the past, when small groups could come together and make a change.
Jacobsen: What has been the efficacy of the ACLU—following from the financial contributions per book purchase—since the 1960s? What has its impact been? How is everyone’s Secret Service file looking?
Tigar: Well, I have a very long FBI file, and there are things in it that caused ripples in my life. But the ACLU—when the Vietnam War protests began, and as we were emerging from the lingering shadow of McCarthyism—they showed up for work.
Melvin Wulf was their staff counsel at the time. Eleanor Holmes Norton, who later became a member of the House of Representatives, was a lawyer there. And I, as a young lawyer arriving in Washington in 1966, saw it firsthand. Not only did the ACLU show up—they put resources into the fight. We won cases nobody thought we could win.
When César Chávez’s son, Fernando, refused induction into the military, he was tried before a Republican federal judge in Fresno, California. There was this magic moment in the courtroom when César himself came in and testified about how his son had decided to become a conscientious objector.
The prosecutor asked, “Now, Mr. Chávez, you say you are a pacifist. What would you do if a Russian soldier were raping your wife?” César paused for a full 30 seconds, then said, “Excuse me, I’ve forgotten your name.”
The prosecutor replied, “Allen. William Allen.”
Chávez said, “Mr. Allen, let me tell you about the struggle of the farm workers.”
Allen promptly objected: “Your Honour, this man is going to make a political speech.”
And the judge said, “Mr. Allen, I’ve spent a week trying to keep Mr. Tigar out of that. And now you ask that question? Well, we’re all going to sit here until Mr. Chávez is done answering it.”
The next morning, the judge tossed out the charges. Interestingly, 20 years later, I ran into that judge. I said, “Judge Crocker, how are you? Do you remember me?”
He said, “Yeah, I remember you. You probably think you won that case.”
I said, “Well, yeah.”
He said, “Well, you didn’t. That dumb son of a bitch lost it.”
So we profited from the over-enthusiasm of our enemies.
Bergman: Michael, you remind me of a similar case where Lytton Strachey, as a World War I objector, was asked, “What would you do if a German was raping your sister?” He replied, “I’d interpose my own body.”
Tigar: Yes, that is classic Lytton Strachey. During one of the trials—just one more story—the so-called conspiracy case, the U.S. attorney summoned the lawyers and said, “We found your clients are holding a bomb.”
I thought, “Oh, shit.” He brings out a World War II hand grenade.
A hand grenade that, of course, had no powder left in it. It was painted baby blue and had a little clip soldered to the top. One of the defendants said, “That’s a roach clip.”
The FBI asked, “What’s a roach clip?”
And the defendant answered, “Ask your children.”
So yes, there was this culture.
Gaynor: What Michael is describing shows that there was much more activity around resistance back then. But the ACLU stepped up.
Currently, it’s the ACLU, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and a few other organizations that are taking action. What we’re seeing today is almost preemptive caving—throwing money at the administration to settle because they don’t want to lose their merger.
Meanwhile, comedians who dare to make fun of recent events are silenced. That’s one of the statements this book makes: it gives voice.
And beyond the message, I love the design—the colours, the way the text is presented. I’ve spent much of my academic life studying how information is illustrated, which is also how I wound up in corporate communications for a global financial services firm.
This book is a very effective piece of communication. Let me turn the tables and ask: what poem, or what part of the book, spoke to you most? We have a manifesto, an introduction, a foreword, statements, sections, and poems.
Tigar: Yes, but you see, it really depends. You can dip into this book anywhere, and you’ll find the piece that fits. You might have to look, but it’s there.
My friend Monet painted the façade of Rouen Cathedral a dozen times, and each time it was a different façade. What you were talking about earlier—about law firms who crook the pregnant hinges of the knee where thrift may follow fawning, if you’re a John Milton fan, or even if you’re not—reminded me of that. There are law firms that have courageously stood up. By the way, the one where I was a partner, Williams & Connolly, did precisely that, and I want to salute my old firm.
I’m going to answer your question. Here’s the poem.
Late at night, first in the morning,
we’ve been together for a lifetime.
How is it we woke strangers,
wondering when we started sleeping with the enemy?
That’s for all the lawyers you mentioned just a few minutes ago. And I know I rattled on at great length, but that’s a function of age. You’ll get there.
Saint James: This is a fascinating conversation for me, as the only woman here. And I’m experiencing a lot of what I experienced when I first saw Jim’s draft.
How women demonstrate and fight back is very different from how men do. We are all warriors—or resisters, to use Michael’s word—of the 60s and 70s. I went to my first political meeting in 1966. It was an SDS meeting, and I was still in high school. I looked around, and it was just me and a whole bunch of men. And I thought, “I don’t belong here,” because it was very clear that their agenda and mine were different.
When Jim first gave me this excellent book with all the quotes—and only one woman, Hannah Arendt—I thought, wait. Jim is very much a feminist and supportive, the best partner I could ever have in the work we’re doing, but Jim, you’re still a man.
So I found myself doing what women do when we protest: first asking, “How much can we get back for our own?” That’s why I said at least half of the quotes should be from women. And Jim wisely said, “You pick them out.”
By the time I finished, no men were being quoted—it was all women. And we came to understand that in the way we put this together. A book about protest, with new voices—yes, we have Harriet Tubman—but women’s voices became another drumbeat, added to Thoreau’s words, to Jim’s poetry, to David’s manifesto, and Michael’s foreword. Together, it became something much bigger, and it was finally realized.
Tigar: I agree with you. But I want to take issue with one of the words you used: “warriors.” Given the level of political violence—the shootings, and the other kinds of violence going on—I think we have to think of ourselves as resisting, resisting the increasing autocracy of the government.
Saint James: I agree with you, David. Now, as a young, newly radicalized teenager in 1966 and 1967, that was the only word. When I suddenly realized what my life could be, and what I had been raised to expect, I—like so many women of that era—just wanted to kill everybody.
Because suddenly, we realized that what we had been raised to expect, first of all, was not reality, and second, was not fair. I will never forget Gloria Steinem, in an interview later in her life, saying, “We thought—and this is absolutely true—we felt that if we could explain to men what was wrong with the system, they would understand and be willing to change things.” Hearing her say that so many decades later rang true because all the women who were in that room laughed; we all had believed it at the time.
And then, when we saw that was not going to happen—that men were not going to listen to us, that they did not see us as whole human beings—we realized we were going to have to do drastic things. Shirley Chisholm said—and it’s in the book—if they don’t give you a seat at the table, bring a folding chair. And we were going to have to bring in those folding chairs and then hit people over the head with them, because it was the only way to get attention.
There was no attention. At the first Women’s March in New York—I believe it was 1970—I was there. I recall that on TV, they didn’t think it would amount to much. They thought a few hundred feminists would walk down Fifth Avenue, and they set up barricades so we had just a small lane on that wide street. However, as the march grew, they had to dismantle all the barricades because there were so many women. We filled the avenue from storefront to storefront, thousands—hundreds of thousands—of women coming out to say, we’ve had enough; this has to change.
It was amazing, truly amazing. But the men did not take it seriously. They did not take it seriously on TV that night. I remember watching the news anchors—male anchors—who didn’t understand why we wanted to do this. Why were women doing this?
Bergman: May I interrupt?
Saint James: Please, David.
Bergman: Let me be a man in this case, and interrupt. I think we are facing another problem, one that is similar to what you mentioned regarding feminism. Most men back then did not understand feminism—indeed, the majority didn’t.
Now, we face a parallel situation. Many people today, and indeed the government—the regime that has taken over—are not going to listen. They want to silence dissent. There’s no way we can convince them to understand.
We thought for a while that if we could only communicate clearly, they would understand. But it’s now quite clear that they are sealed off.
What do we do then? They have created an atmosphere of violence because they will not listen. And that violence could be turned on us—all of us.
Jacobsen: A few thoughts here, if I may—if I can interrupt the interrupting. I notice the language being used a lot about the regime—”it”—about the current Republican administration. That’s very much object language rather than subject language, which may actually be apt. Because it, like a rock, doesn’t listen. So it’s probably an appropriate characterization.
On the use of the term warriors versus resistors, a lot of these terms have a duality. You could throw a little Timothy Leary–style acidic optimism into it and frame it differently: as advocates. By resisting, you’re also advocating for a particular set of values, because the values you are resisting are contrary to those you hold.
And, to reiterate the earlier point about the Women’s March: I was recently in Iceland for three weeks, examining some of their gender equality efforts, which are remarkably strong. When women marched there. People listened. Pay equity reforms were implemented quickly, alongside other conscious and progressive decisions.
But in most movements, it’s usually a majority of women and a significant minority of enlightened men that make such changes possible.
To return to James’s poetry, the poem that spoke to me the most is “Grieving” (page 27). My father was an alcoholic. He and I were estranged. He died last year. I was abroad for a seven-week trip. I returned near midnight in the Summer, and the next morning was his funeral—or “celebration of life.”
Grieving captured that experience. It goes:
Make a list. Write down what you hated. And then, ruefully smiling, read it aloud. Strike a match, light the paper, and then set the curtains on fire. Walk out the door, close it behind you, and then, from a distance, watch it all burn down. Change your name. Leave the country. And then, knowing what you know, start over.
For me, it was not the dramatic persona of the poem itself, but the line, one step at a time. That has been my process of grieving. That was why I took the seven-week trip before the funeral. One day at a time. One step at a time.
I also wanted to reflect on what Nola said about the baseball team chant. I noticed that rhythm in the poem as well—the repeated “and then, and then, and then.” It becomes a chant, almost incantatory. There’s rhythm in that repetition, and I see it connecting with the commentary that’s been raised here.
Tigar: Back in the sixties, when women’s issues were suppressed, women were told, “It’s not your turn. We’ll do this liberation first.” But the truth is, as Brecht said in one of his 1930s poems, “All of us, or none.”
I saw this dynamic in the profession I’ve been part of. My law school class had 300 graduates—only six were women. Today, at least half of law students are women.
When Justice Sandra Day O’Connor joined the Supreme Court, the quality of discourse underwent a significant change. And when Ruth Bader Ginsburg later joined, it was almost a quantum leap. Justice O’Connor, in particular, took male advocates to task in ways that left a lasting impression.
Let me share a story. She was the commencement speaker at American University’s Washington College of Law one year, when I was teaching there. The university president, Benjamin Ladner, a pompous man, came up to her and said, “How do you do? I’m Benjamin Ladner, president of the university.” He was wearing a necklace with medallions representing each college of the university.
Justice O’Connor looked at him and asked, “What in the world is that around your neck?” He explained that each medallion represented a college of the university. She replied, “Really? Do you wear it around the house to get a little extra respect?”
That was Justice O’Connor—direct, incisive, and transformative. These events altered the way people viewed women in law.
Jacobsen: To return to the original question: the import of the ACLU and the matter of personal “rap sheets.”
Tigar: The ACLU has had its lapses. For example, it struggled with the question of whether communists had the same rights as everyone else. When Dr. Benjamin Spock was indicted for draft resistance, there was significant debate within the ACLU about whether they could take on the case. Eventually, they did, writing strong amicus briefs, and all convictions were reversed.
I remember arguing it out internally, with substantial opposition to supporting that position. No organization is perfect. However, when the ACLU arrived for work, it was formidable. And I’ll admit—it was fun.
Saint James: Scott, to go back to your point about the language of fighting, resistance, and war: let me share a woman’s perspective.
When women get together these days, many of them speak, sometimes half in jest but also in deadly seriousness, about going to the White House and setting themselves on fire. It’s not likely we’ll see hundreds of thousands of women doing that.
But the fact that so many feel compelled to say it shows the overwhelming rage at what’s happening in government, in women’s rights, and in women’s healthcare. It’s an expression of total frustration. People need to know: this is a serious matter.
When women are talking about immolating themselves, this isn’t good, not because they will do it. But because it creates a barrier between men and women. That’s why I bring it up. Women are not only hurting, but they are more furious than I can ever remember. (I wanted to add the following, but David jumped in. Use it if you wish, or take it out.) Every Mother’s Day, there is a cartoon that pops up on Facebook. It shows two 20-something young women looking for a card. One says to the other, “I’m looking for a card for my mother that says, ‘You did not waste your entire life fighting for women’s rights.’” For many women of my generation, this really strikes home.
Bergman: Yet, there are more women in this administration than in any other administration I’ve recognized. You have horrible women—dog shooters. What you are talking about, Jim, is only one of the people who have thought of setting themselves on fire. It is because of the frustration. Because this is an administration, it is not that it cannot hear. It does not want to hear. What do you do to break that?
Saint James: Because of Michael’s association with Angela Davis and Jim’s association with Angela Davis—writing her in for any position where he did not like other candidates—I was inspired to find a quote from her for our book. One that really resonated with me is the one on page 41: “If they come for me in the morning, they will come for you in the night.”That resonated with me because it is so much like Martin Niemöller’s poem, “First They Came,” from the Holocaust. It describes how they came for the labour unionists, and he did nothing because he was not a labour unionist. He goes through all of these different people who were taken away, and he was not one of them. Then, finally, they came for him. There are some variations of this—he himself wrote several versions of the poem.
This message is absolutely accurate and could not be more timely: when they come after Stephen Colbert, when they come after Jimmy Fallon. When Stephen Colbert’s show was cancelled, interestingly, they cancelled it but did not pull him off the air. All the other late-night hosts came together and issued a statement. And then, the other day, they not only silenced Jimmy Fallon, they pulled his show. Jimmy Kimmel, too—eventually, they will come after him. The thing is, it might be easy for people to say, “Well, they’re just performers, entertainers, it’s not important.”
However, these are some of the most outspoken voices that reach a wide range of people, not only in the United States but also, thanks to the internet and social media, around the world.
Tigar: Think of Charlie Chaplin.
Gaynor: This goes back to David’s point about how poetry endures. Poetry stretches across ages. That poem—about the horrors of an authoritarian state taking root—resonates with us right now. It resonates even more because of our distance.
History doesn’t repeat itself, but it echoes. It doesn’t show us precisely what will happen, but it shows us what we can do. And on the darker side, we know from such poems what human beings are capable of doing to each other—and why we must act. March, support the ACLU, set yourself on fire—or at least talk about it.
Saint James: Don’t set yourself on fire. It makes it very hard to get up the next morning and do something positive.
Jacobsen: Right—and then we’ve lost another Buddhist.
Gaynor: Well, I was never much of a Buddhist. When I was leaving, I had an exit interview with the sensei. I said, “I’m not much of a success as a Buddhist.” He said, “Neither am I.”
Bergman: One thing we need to remember, as people in our seventies and older, is that our voices are not usually the ones people listen to. Still, we must keep speaking.
We can take risks—it’s unlikely that we’ll be the ones punished. And if we are, well, we’ve lived enough that we can take that chance. But remember: on the “Night of the Murdered Poets” in 1952, Stalin had all the major Yiddish poets under his control executed in a single night. Poetry itself is never safe from enemies.
Saint James: That’s an excellent point, David.
Jacobsen: What characterizes the enemy of poets?
Tigar: The ACLU reflects a principle deeply rooted in Anglo-American history—but extending beyond that. The principle is that those who wield power cannot be permitted to act with impunity.
This idea—that power must be subject to correction by law—began to take modern form around 1607–1608 with Sir Edward Coke. The familiar lawyers kept pressing the point, the king kept pushing back, and eventually they had to shorten him “by the length of the head” to make their point.
That principle still resonates today. The Nuremberg tribunals were created because Stalin wanted to line up Nazi leaders and shoot them. But Truman and Churchill insisted instead on a historical record, with rules and fair procedures. That not only set an example of how justice ought to work, it also placed beyond serious dispute the fact of the Holocaust itself. So this review, restraint, and didactic function—that’s what the ACLU reflects.
Jacobsen: If people are willing to kill poets overnight—as Stalin did, for example—what characterizes the enemies of poets through time?
Bergman: People who don’t want the truth. Liars, humiliators, bullies. Bullies don’t recite poetry. I’ve never heard the president recite a poem, and certainly not at his inaugurations, has he not invited a poet to speak? Not that a poet would necessarily come, but he could find one.
They’re afraid of language used forcefully, where the vitality of language comes alive for people. They prefer slogans. Poetry also carries an element of beauty. And in many of these people, I see a hatred of beauty, a hatred of truth. There are many different forms of beauty, but authoritarianism seeks to impose an aesthetic that is antithetical to poetry. That is why poets get silenced.
Saint James: In Breaking Up on X, we included this excellent quote by Amanda Gorman. She says, “Words are a type of combat, for we always become what we refuse to say.” She’s magnificent.
She channels Maya Angelou. She’s so young, yet so wise. But this is true: people with an agenda don’t just suppress poets, they suppress speech itself. They fear discourse; they fear ideas. It’s almost as if in their minds they’re saying, “People should be seen and not heard.” Poetry demands to be heard.
Gaynor: And sometimes, Scott, poetry is also heard in its silences. One of the silences in this collection that I am most proud of is that there is not a single mention of the name of the figurehead puppet of this particular movement. He is noted only by his absence.
Saint James: This was a long conversation Jim and I had about how we wanted to frame the whole book and its promotion. When we put it together, we wanted it to visually convey—through visual poetry—what the book conveys in written form.
Gaynor: And the fact that this is going to appear among all of your other platforms, Scott—at The Good Men Project, because David, as you know, Scott, you and I both share editing experiences with the formidable Kara Post-Kennedy. That’s how we were all put together. We’re looking forward to seeing what we can do to help promote the book and encourage people to think about things they can do.
It’s not necessarily just about this book. It’s about acting. Michael said to me, “You’re a poet, write poetry.” So you’re a poet, write. That’s part of the message here as well.
Overall, one of the initial questions you asked was whether this is a different collection of poems. It is, because it is enveloped in text, history, and story. One of the things that Pinfeather Press, our organization, is about is storytelling. All literature, all mathematics—everything tells a story.
And that brings us back to the enemies of poetry, who are also enemies of storytelling. If they don’t like the story, you don’t get to tell it. However, this book stands as a counterpoint to that.
I’ve suggested to a few people that, with holidays coming up, this book might be an excellent resource to bring to family gatherings—especially where there are varying political differences. It might spark some reasoned conversation. What David was saying about resistance can also mean actively listening, because that’s something we desperately need to do.
Those of us on the coasts, for whom things are working relatively well in the new service economy, often fail to understand that this system isn’t working well for those in between. Why are they frightened? Why are they vulnerable to grifters? They’re angry, they’re scared. We need to understand that anger—not to excuse everything, but at least to listen. As Rodney King said, “Can’t we all just get along?”
Saint James: The resources at the back of the book include two children’s books. One is Stacey’s Extraordinary Words by Stacey Abrams. It’s part of a lovely series of children’s books she’s written about standing up for oneself and fighting against Injustice. The other is George Takei’s They Called Us Enemy, about his childhood experience in Japanese American internment camps in California during World War II.
It’s a children’s graphic memoir—gentle but powerful—and it teaches personal agency in a way kids can understand.
Bergman: I believe I read that Abrams’ book has been banned in Florida. I hope I’m wrong—but I fear I’m not.
Gaynor: The other thing, Scott—in that list, the second book is by America’s leading gay academic literature scholar, David Bergman. It’s The Violet Quill Reader, one of David’s works on the emergence of gay writing after Stonewall—who wrote what, with whom, how often, when. It’s a groundbreaking scholarship that is particularly important for gay and lesbian readers to know about. And David is right here, so—yay! Of course, Michael’s book, Sensing Injustice, is a riveting memoir of his development as a civil rights and human rights lawyer.
This note section is an extension of what Nola and I envisioned for Pinfeather Press, which is to tell stories. And so, if poetry leads you to read the memoir of a man who fought against the death penalty, and also a children’s book about internment camps in 1940s California, then we’ve created a wealth of stories that whirl together.
That makes this different from a simple collection of poems. This book has layers—memoir, protest, history, poetry. All of it, we hope, reaches an audience that will support the ACLU—because, dear God, they’re the only ones really doing anything.
Talk at home. Talk with people. Think about what you can do. If the four of us could put together a whole book, then maybe you can too—or perhaps you can hold a yard sale, or possibly you can do something small in your own community. But it’s something to do.
One of the things I love about this particular collection is that it’s a genuine collective effort. We came together to make it happen. That makes it very special. I’m honoured to have my poetry appear alongside the work of Michael Tigar, David Bergman, and Rabbi Dr. Jo David—also known, of course, as the rabbi who writes Regency romance with recipes.
Jacobsen: Final words? Who gets the last word?
Gaynor: Since I’m the common thread here, let’s that be the final word — if that’s okay with everyone.
Jacobsen: Excellent. Everyone, thank you very much for your time today.
Saint James: Thank you so much, Scott. Really wonderful.
Tigar: Thank you, Scott.
Bergman: Thank you.
Gaynor: And look at us—the four of us in our seventies, still resisting!
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/30
Chip Lupo is an analyst with WalletHub, a leading personal finance platform known for its in-depth reports and rankings on economic, cultural, and social issues. With expertise in data analysis and financial research, Lupo provides accessible insights into topics that shape American life, from state-by-state diversity to consumer finance trends. His work helps readers understand how economic opportunity, cultural dynamics, and demographic change intersect. At WalletHub, he contributes to research that informs public debate, supports decision-making, and sheds light on critical issues facing U.S. communities, blending statistical rigour with a practical understanding of social and economic realities.
In this interview with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, WalletHub analyst Chip Lupo discusses the findings of a new report ranking the most diverse states in America. California, Texas, New Mexico, Florida, and Nevada lead the nation in cultural, socioeconomic, and political diversity, reflecting immigration patterns and historical context. By contrast, states such as West Virginia, Maine, and Montana rank at the bottom due to rural isolation and slower demographic shifts. Lupo explains why economic and cultural diversity carry the most weight in the index, drawing on sources such as the U.S. Census Bureau, the Pew Research Center, and the ARDA. The conversation highlights America’s evolving demographic future.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: All right, once again, we are here with the informative Chip Lupo from WalletHub. He is an analyst there, so he is a professional working on a variety of subjects and is always very helpful in efficiently delivering information about some of the work they do at WalletHub. Today, we are going to discuss the most diverse states in America.
The report highlights how the American narrative is deeply intertwined with diversity, woven into the nation’s fabric. The U.S. Census Bureau predicts that by 2045, there will be no single ethnic majority in the United States. This raises questions not only about the general “mixed” category, but also about the kinds of mixtures that will exist.
In other words, by the end of the century, America will be a very beige country. With that in mind, let us go through the report from top to bottom, as that is the most straightforward way to do it. The overall ranking puts California, Texas, New Mexico, Florida, and Nevada in the top five, based on socioeconomic, cultural, economic, household, religious, and political diversity.
California ranks very strongly across most areas—No. 1 in cultural diversity and No. 1 in political diversity—with a weaker spot in religious diversity. So why do those five states stand out at the top?
Chip Lupo: Take a look at where your top states are. Visualize a map of the United States and examine the locations of California, Texas, and New Mexico: all three states share a border with Mexico.
Immigration has been a hot-button issue for the past 10 years or so, but this trend goes back much further. Diversity has long been part of the culture in these states. California, Texas, and New Mexico are right on the southern border.
Whether immigration is legal or illegal, these states embrace cultures from Mexico and other nationalities from Central and Latin America. Florida is only about 90 miles from Cuba. Nevada borders California.
So in terms of cultural diversity, it is not surprising that these states rank very high. As for economic and socioeconomic diversity, gaps can appear for many reasons—including different industry mixes and educational backgrounds—which shape how quickly people plug into local labour markets.
Jacobsen: Now, looking at the bottom five: West Virginia, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Montana. Overall, the diversity index is exceptionally tight across the United States. Many other measures form a more standard bell curve, but this one is quite compressed.
Lupo: It is quite polarizing when you compare the top and bottom states. Look at where these states are located: Montana, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, and West Virginia.
These are smaller or more rural states. Montana, despite its border with Canada, remains rural and offers fewer metropolitan opportunities. West Virginia is a very rural, isolated, and mountainous state, which may not offer as many job opportunities. Tradition also plays a role. In many of these areas, people may be less receptive to rapid demographic change, and that can be generational. West Virginia ranked dead last overall and also ranked last in two of the six key dimensions (socioeconomic and cultural diversity).
Jacobsen: Now we go to the rationale. The most significant factors are socioeconomic diversity, cultural diversity, economic diversity, and household diversity. The two smaller ones are religious diversity and political diversity. The United States is one of the most surveyed populations in the world, so you can really get a fine-grained view of the U.S. population. Why is the breakdown where four categories receive 20 points each and two categories receive 10 points used when building this index in broad terms?
Lupo: In many cases, people come to this country for economic opportunity. So obviously, that is going to weigh heavily. Cultural diversity is also weighted heavily because, going back generations, immigrants came here to take part in the American Dream, but they still wanted to retain their ethnicity and identities while ingraining themselves in American culture.
If you look back a generation or two, large urban areas were often divided into neighbourhoods by ethnicity—sections of New York, for example, with Spanish, Italian, or Irish communities.
Cultural diversity has always been at the core of immigration: maintaining one’s culture while assimilating into American society. That balance is delicate, and it carries significant weight.
Socioeconomic diversity also illustrates how new arrivals are often not highly skilled at first, so it takes time for them to integrate into the workplace and find meaningful employment. That is why the index puts an emphasis there, too.
Political and religious diversity, on the other hand, do not shift as much. The United States was founded on the idea of religious freedom, so people generally arrive with their own belief systems intact. Similarly, many immigrants bring their political ideals with them, so there is not as much of a shake-up in those categories.
Jacobsen: One more point here: sources. This report is straightforward, but the primary sources are the U.S. Census Bureau, the Association of Religion Data Archives (ARDA), and the Pew Research Center. Why were those chosen for this analysis of diversity in the United States?
Lupo: The Census Bureau is the foundation of diversity statistics, so that is a logical choice. ARDA and Pew Research provide additional context. We try not to rely solely on government data, so we include reputable third-party sources and think tanks, such as Pew. The Census Bureau remains the backbone, though, because it provides the most detailed numbers, and it breaks them down very effectively.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Chip.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/29
Charles Karel Bouley, professionally known as Karel, is a trailblazing LGBTQ broadcaster, entertainer, and activist. As half of the first openly gay duo in U.S. drive-time radio, he made history while shaping California law on LGBTQ wrongful death cases. Karel rose to prominence as the #1 talk show host on KFI AM 640 in Los Angeles and KGO AM 810 in San Francisco, later expanding to Free Speech TV and the Karel Cast podcast. His work spans journalism (HuffPost, The Advocate, Billboard), television (CNN, MSNBC), and music. A voting member of NARAS, GALECA, and SAG-AFTRA, Karel now lives and creates in Las Vegas.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen interviews Bouley, who reflects on reactions to Charlie Kirk’s assassination, alleged pressure on broadcasters, and the spread of anti-trans narratives. He urges a policy focus on gun safety, secure storage, and red-flag laws rather than partisan blame. The discussion tracks Project 2025’s passport and health-coverage aims, rising state bills restricting LGBTQ rights, and the chilling effect of proposed media regulation. Bouley weighs international implications for travel documents, warns about democratic erosion, and defends gender-affirming care as medically necessary alongside routine, covered treatments.
Interview conducted September 19, 2025.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: I want to take one step back for this week’s commentary. Since the assassination of Charlie Kirk on September 10, 2025, there has been much reaction.
Karel Bouley: But little of it looks like public mourning. What I see most is anger, outrage, name-calling, and a scramble to pin blame. ABC suspended Jimmy Kimmel after remarks about the right’s response to Kirk’s killing; several affiliates pulled his show, and the FCC’s chair waded in with threats that critics say cross the line into coercion of speech. Kimmel’s peers have publicly condemned the suspension.
Two Republican lawmakers responded to the shooting by calling for transgender people to be “institutionalized,” a proposal widely condemned by civil-rights groups and not grounded in evidence about the suspect. False narratives attempting to tie the shooter to “trans ideology” spread quickly despite officials saying there’s no such link.
On the facts: authorities arrested 22-year-old Tyler James Robinson after a 33-hour search. Prosecutors and reporting indicate he acted alone; investigators have not tied him to left-wing organizations, and his online trail looks more like a memetic, “terminally online” subculture than a coherent ideology.
The weapon matters. Investigators recovered a bolt-action rifle they say Robinson used; charging documents and press briefings indicate it came from his grandfather—a family gift—illustrating how easy access can be fatal even without semiautomatics.
That is why the conversation should have centred on gun policy: secure storage, access, and red-flag mechanisms, not a proxy war over which tribe “owns” the killer. Instead, the response has tilted into right-versus-left theatre, with threats to punish media critics via licensing talk—a move media-law folks compare to past episodes of presidential pressure on broadcasters.
A quick note on the culture-grief examples: Barbra Streisand is alive. I publicly mourned Robert Redford—who died September 16, 2025—alongside the rest of Hollywood. So yes, that sort of genuine grief is a real social barometer, and we’ve seen it for Redford. We’ve seen less of that from partisan actors here and more instrumental outrage.
Finally, Congress passed a bipartisan resolution condemning political violence and honouring Kirk’s life. Even that became a flashpoint, underscoring how polarized this is—and how badly the country needs a norms-based, evidence-based reset.
As a historian who studies various cultures, if Democrats do not retake a majority in November of next year, authoritarianism on the right will be locked in. That’s it. Democracy will end. Not a maybe—it will. America’s democracy will be over in 400 days if the midterms either don’t happen, are rigged, or if Democrats don’t win them. These are terrifying times in America if you’re not a right-wing extremist.
For gays and lesbians—since we often focus on LGBTQ issues here—it is becoming increasingly frightening. I have had ten friends this week, people who never even thought about this before, who have seriously asked me about leaving the country. What steps would they take? Which countries are most pro-gay? They’re rattled. These are people who don’t usually rattle. They don’t even follow politics. Yet now they feel unsafe.
We have an issue today tied to Project 2025, which is trying to change the way the United States issues and acknowledges gender on passports. Many countries now allow for gender fluidity: male, female, non-binary, or no gender listed. The United States has permitted non-binary passports, but now Trump wants them stopped. This comes directly out of Project 2025. I don’t think Trump himself cares, but it’s part of that agenda. It won’t be successfully challenged in court. The federal government has broad authority to set passport rules. Unfortunately, in America, recognition of gender equality is not codified into law.
If the administration, the USDA, the Department of Justice, and the agencies regulating passports decide this is the policy, then it will be the policy.
Jacobsen: Has there been a notable rise in violence against LGBTQ+ people in America?
Bouley: Anecdotally, yes. But I would need to look at the crime statistics, which I no longer trust. Do I trust Kash Patel’s FBI to provide the real data on LGBTQ violence? Not really.
The rhetoric against trans people has increased since the Charlie Kirk assassination. So has the threat of violence online against gays and lesbians. Yesterday, a friend asked me for material while arguing with his sister, so I sent him a spreadsheet of 630 pieces of legislation in 2025 targeting LGBTQ people. Of those, 254 are still pending, 148 have passed, and about 80 were defeated. That means there are nearly 400 pieces of legislation moving through state governments aimed at harming LGBTQ people, especially trans people.
Much of this legislation deals with what schools can teach, what books are available, and restrictions on gender-affirming care. There is a definite anti-gay movement happening in this country. For many, it’s under the radar because they don’t realize there are over 600 pieces of legislation moving right now. They think, “I haven’t heard of anything.” Well, I can provide a list of which states are doing what, and it is not very comforting.
There are more than 400 bills either already passed or moving forward that discriminate against LGBTQ people. The Kirk assassination has only emboldened the champions of this legislation. Has it caused harm? Yes. Has violence gone up? I haven’t seen the statistics, but anecdotally, in my world, I’ve heard of more harassment, more people being yelled at in public, more hate crimes happening in New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and elsewhere. People are being hurt and beaten. It is not a good time to be gay in America.
Jacobsen: That brings us to the weekly news. A city attorney was unable to speculate on whether a draft policy would ban LGBTQ flags. These are unofficial political flags.
Bouley: Trump was asked about pride flags in Washington, D.C. by Marjorie Taylor Greene’s partner, who works in the media. Trump said he opposed flying them and would see what he could do about stopping that. He then went further and said he would even be open to looking into designating the Pride flag as a symbol of terrorism.
That’s frightening, because if that were true, it would effectively designate gays and lesbians as terrorists. Hearing someone in the Oval Office say “maybe the pride flag should be a symbol of terrorism” is chilling. That’s an issue we need to observe.
On advancing bills: In New Hampshire, civil rights restrictions and weakening civil rights law are moving forward. In Massachusetts, there are bills restricting student and educator rights, trans sports bans, curriculum censorship, and forced outing in schools. Massachusetts was rated the number one state for LGBTQ people by the HRC, and yet legislation like H551 is advancing.
In Iowa, there are healthcare restrictions and religious exemption bills that allow businesses to deny services to LGBTQ people. In Missouri, there are age restrictions for healthcare and religious exemptions. In Oklahoma, similar bills are moving forward. In Wisconsin, SP 146 would create barriers to accurate IDs, preventing people from identifying as non-binary or trans on licenses.
In Montana, SB 299 requires the forced outing of students in schools. Gay youth are already at the highest risk for suicide, and this will only make things worse. In Ohio, HB 172 imposes healthcare age restrictions, effectively preventing minors from transitioning. In North Carolina, H606 adds more healthcare restrictions. Missouri is still trying to ban drag, not just in schools but altogether—an outright ban on drag shows.
Missouri alone has fourteen pieces of anti-LBGTQ legislation moving through its state government. We are under attack, and it is happening nationally.
Jacobsen: Next, Jerry Greenfield, co-founder of Ben & Jerry’s, announced his resignation, saying he has been silenced over LGBTQ+ rights. So, it’s just “Ben’s” ice cream now, I suppose—just Ben. Greenfield wrote:
“It’s with a broken heart that I decided I can no longer, in good conscience and after 47 years, remain an employee of Ben & Jerry’s. I am resigning from the company Ben and I started back in 1978. This is one of the hardest and most painful decisions I’ve ever made.”
Remember, Ben and Jerry ran their company until it was acquired. They now answer to a board of directors. The company wanted to go in a different direction, and Greenfield opposed it. Without the power he once had, he resigned.
Bouley: We’ve seen this before. Look at TikTok and the broader tech industry. Larry Ellison of Oracle, who was briefly the richest man in the world, has been involved in negotiations affecting TikTok’s ownership. He and his brother Dan have been tied to deals involving Paramount, Skydance, and now a bid for Warner Bros. Discovery. Consolidation is happening everywhere, and leadership often steers companies away from their founders’ original values.
That’s what happened with Ben & Jerry’s. The company has always been inclusive, and Jerry wanted it to stay that way. Without enough power inside the company, his only option was to leave—maybe to start another ice cream venture. Founders who are pushed out for ideological reasons often walk away wealthy, but it remains painful. Instagram’s founders, for example, stayed on briefly after Facebook bought them, but eventually left because they disagreed with Zuckerberg’s direction. They went on to start Artifact.
Jacobsen: Human Rights Watch recently published an article by Yasmine Smollins, an officer in the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Rights Program. The piece is titled “Trump Moves to Restrict Gender-Affirming Care to Federal Workers and Families.” Any thoughts?
Bouley: Yes—because remember, if you’re a federal worker with insurance, your family is also covered under that plan. Gender-affirming care would usually be covered, just like any other medical procedure. Trump wants to change that. This goes back to the story we discussed last week about the sheriff’s deputy.
The question becomes: can the government surgically remove one specific medical procedure from insurance coverage? They already removed abortion, so the answer appears to be yes. The danger, if we extrapolate, is that if they can do this for abortion and gender-affirming care, what other procedures might fall out of favour and then be excluded? When does it become the government’s role to decide what you and your doctor deem necessary?
The federal government has no issue covering Viagra—about $30 a pill. So the idea that they don’t cover sexual or reproductive procedures is false. They cover some and not others, picking and choosing based on ideology.
This is part of Project 2025. One of its stated goals is to remove all government funding for transgender health care. The irony is that the federal government isn’t the insurer—plans are administered through companies like Cigna and Blue Cross. What the government is doing is instructing those plans not to cover these procedures.
We’re referring to a small number of people. Less than 1% of the U.S. population is transgender. Of those, only a fraction are federal employees or dependents. We’re likely talking about fewer than 10,000 procedures a year, possibly as few as 5,000. This is nitpicking. It has nothing to do with cost or insurance logistics. It’s policy-based bigotry, not finance.
Jacobsen: And the last item for the week comes from Reuters, by Andrew Chung and John Kruzel, published September 19. “Trump asks US Supreme Court to enforce passport policy targeting transgender people.” Trump directly petitioned the Supreme Court on Friday to block the issuance of passports that recognize the gender identities of transgender and non-binary Americans.
The Justice Department filed an emergency request to lift a federal judge’s order that barred the State Department from enforcing a Trump-directed policy. That policy stems from an executive order he signed after returning to office on January 20, declaring that the U.S. government will only recognize two biologically distinct sexes: male and female.
Justice Department lawyers wrote: “Private citizens cannot force the government to use inaccurate sex designations on identification documents that fail to reflect the person’s biological sex—especially not on identification documents that are government property and an exercise of the president’s constitutional and statutory power to communicate with foreign governments.”
Any thoughts?
Bouley: We have to wonder how this looks in practice. Imagine a trans person from Canada whose passport lists them as non-binary, or someone who transitioned from male to female and whose passport now says female. What happens at U.S. customs? Are they denied entry because their gender marker doesn’t align with U.S. rules? Are they humiliated with invasive checks?
The Trump administration is essentially trying to force other governments that already recognize trans and non-binary identities to conform to U.S. standards. He wants all travel documents standardized globally to fit this binary agenda. If France issues a passport with a non-binary designation and that traveller arrives in America, will they be turned back at the border?
That’s what the courts will have to sort out. The U.S. is attempting to project its will internationally, and it’s unclear whether such a policy can function without creating chaos at customs and immigration.
I’d have to double-check the passport rules, but I don’t believe you need to complete surgery to change your gender marker. If you’re transitioning or undergoing gender-affirming care, you can still identify on a passport as your affirmed gender.
So imagine someone identifies as female, may even have breasts, but still has a penis. What is Customs going to do with that—physically inspect them? The whole thing reveals how absurd and hateful this lawmaking is. It’s not about policy coherence; it’s about imposing the U.S. government’s will on how other countries issue IDs.
Legal challenges are underway, but given the growing anti-trans movement in this country—especially amplified after the Charlie Kirk incident—I’m not confident trans people will win these battles. The courts will have to sort this out, but the deeper issue is international consistency. With immigration and document policy, there needs to be standardized acceptance for things like gender, birth dates, and other identifying data.
It will be interesting to see not only how U.S. courts rule, but whether those rulings ripple outward to affect other countries, which is precisely what the administration hopes for.
Now, on gender-affirming care: I want a neck lift. That’s a form of gender-affirming care, too. Think about it. Hair plugs, breast implants, and penis enlargement are all accepted forms of altering the body to align with identity or desired gender expression.
Rep. Nancy Mace, who spends her time railing against trans people, was reminded recently by a journalist that breast cancer treatment is gender-affirming care. So is prostate treatment. Cosmetic surgery broadly is gender-affirming care, and she herself has had work done.
Labelling only trans procedures as “gender-affirming care” is disingenuous. It proves this isn’t about gender affirmation at all—it’s about targeting trans people. Viagra, for example, is gender-affirming care. If impotence is “God’s will,” why do we cover Viagra? Women don’t take it. Shouldn’t wives have a say before their husbands use it? Maybe some are relieved when it doesn’t work. But still—Viagra is gender-affirming care, and we treat it as routine.
Every story we’ve talked about today is rooted in bigotry and hatred. None of this legislation is designed to improve the life of a single American. No child’s life will be better. No parent’s life will be better. No citizen will be better off. This is strictly hateful, divisive, bigoted policymaking. And we’re going to see much more of it. Trump still has three more years.
Jacobsen: All right, I’ll see you next week. Thanks so much for your time.
Bouley: Thank you, take care—Au revoir.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/29
Will Dempsey, LICSW, is the founder of Heads Held High Counseling, a fully online, gender-affirming practice serving clients in Boston and Chicago. With over 10 years of clinical experience, Will and his team specialize in supporting LGBTQ+ individuals navigating anxiety, depression, trauma, ADHD, and chronic pain. His therapeutic approach integrates EMDR, CBT, IFS, and expressive arts, creating a personalized path to healing. As a public advocate, Will has written extensively on trans protections, sanctuary policies, and LGBTQ+ youth mental health. His work emphasizes resilience, community care, and the critical importance of affirming spaces in today’s challenging sociopolitical climate.
In this interview with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Dempsey examines the retreat of corporate Pride sponsors and its mental health impact. Communities want less corporatized Pride, yet lost funding can restrict access for youth, sober attendees, and disabled people. He defines allyship as year round investment, advocacy, benefits, and hiring practices, not seasonal branding. Pullbacks under political pressure reinforce stigma by signaling conditional support. Dempsey recommends diversified funding through small recurring donations, mutual aid, partnerships, and grants, plus sliding scale vendor options. He urges leaders and therapists to center marginalized voices and reconnect Pride to resistance, community care, and safety.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How does the decline in sponsorships at Pride events impact the mental health of LGBTQ+ communities?
Will Dempsey: I’ve found it to be a mixed bag. On the one hand, there is a growing demand within the LGBTQ+ community to decorporatize Pride. Many corporate sponsors have shown visible support during June, but behind the scenes, they are often supporting political figures who have actively harmed our community. The hypocrisy isn’t lost on people and feels like Pride is being used as a marketing opportunity or to attract more customers rather than a true form of allyship.
At the same time, the withdrawal of corporate funding has real consequences. It can limit access, and in some areas, make Pride completely impossible. While unrelated to corporate funding, Boston Pride was completely shut down a few years ago. While grassroots events and bar-based celebrations still existed, they unintentionally excluded people: underage folks, sober community members, and people with disabilities, among others.
It raises an important question: how do we return Pride to its roots as a protest and celebration of resistance, while still ensuring it remains accessible, inclusive, and safe for everyone under the LGBTQ+ umbrella? That balance – or lack thereof – can definitely have a mental health impact, especially for those who feel increasingly left out or unseen.
Jacobsen: What role should corporations play in balancing profit and authentic allyship?
Dempsey: True allyship isn’t about what the ally gains – it’s about what the community gains. If a corporation is only showing up for profits or convenience, that’s not allyship; that’s marketing. Many of the companies who’ve stepped back from Pride have massive profits and leadership teams earning hundreds of thousands – if not millions – of dollars annually. Meanwhile, many LGBTQ+ people, especially trans folks and queer people of color, continue to face disproportionate financial hardship. That imbalance makes the withdrawal an even deeper cut.
If a company genuinely wants to be an ally, there’s no real “balance” between profit and allyship. They should be listening to the community and acting accordingly by putting financial resources behind what the community actually needs – not just what looks good on a billboard in June. In a way, the recent pullback from Pride sponsorships has only confirmed what many of us already knew: for most of these companies, it was never about us. It was about optics.
Jacobsen: How does corporate withdrawal from Pride sponsorships reinforce or challenge stigma?
Dempsey: Corporate withdrawal largely reinforces stigma. It sends a message that when support for the LGBTQ+ community becomes financially risky (such as from political pressure), it’s easily abandoned. True allyship means standing by a community not simply when it’s easy or profitable, but when it’s hard. Right now, with increasing backlash against DEI initiatives and growing political pressure, many companies are choosing to protect their bottom line rather than stand by their values.
This reinforces what many in the queer community have suspected all along: that corporate Pride was often more about optics than genuine allyships. When companies step back at the first sign of controversy, it tells us that their support was conditional – and that’s a deeply stigmatizing message. It suggests our rights, identities, and safety are negotiable depending on market trends.
Jacobsen: What strategies can LGBTQ+ organizations use to reduce reliance on corporate funding?
Dempsey: While it’s likely nearly impossible to match the scale of corporate contributions, especially for large Pride events, there are meaningful ways LGBTQ+ organizations can begin reducing reliance on them. One key strategy is building deeper community-based funding models – things like recurring small donations, mutual aid networks, or community interest funds. These may not bring in millions, but they build resilience, accountability, and long-term sustainability.
Partnerships with local businesses, especially queer-owned or allied ones, can also be a support. These relationships tend to have aligned values and roots in the community itself. Additionally, pursuing grants from foundations, government programs, and mission-driven philanthropies can help diversify income without compromising on ethics.
Ultimately, it’s about shifting the question from “How do we replace corporate dollars?” to “How do we build a more self-sustainable, inclusive, and true to values Pride?” That may mean scaling differently, but it also could mean regaining control over the purpose of Pride.
Jacobsen: How do anti-LBGTQ+ laws and political backlash influence corporate decision-making?
Dempsey: They have a huge influence. This year alone, we’ve seen corporations pull out of Pride sponsorships specifically because of the growing political backlash and the rise in anti-LBGTQ+ laws across the country. Many companies are afraid of becoming targets in the so-called “culture wars,” and instead of standing firm in their support, they’re choosing to stay silent or step back entirely.
It shows that, for many of them, the fear of political and financial repercussions outweighs their stated commitment to inclusion and equality. That kind of retreat doesn’t go unnoticed – it signals to the community that when things get tough, we can’t count on that support. It’s a reminder that corporate allyships, unless they’re backed by real courage and consistency, are often conditional.
Jacobsen: What are examples of meaningful, year-round corporate allyship?
Dempsey: Meaningful corporate allyship can go far beyond Pride Month marketing. It needs to be a year-round investment in the community – especially the most marginalized. That could mean funding for LGBTQ+ organizations, offering grants to queer entrepreneurs, or supporting housing, health care, and mental health initiatives that directly benefit the community.
Internally, it could be comprehensive healthcare that includes gender-affirming care, strong non-discrimination protections, and inclusive family leave policies. It also means hiring and promoting queer and trans people, especially of color, into leadership roles. Most importantly, it means using their influence and power to take public stances against anti-LBGTQ+ legislation – even when it’s risky.
Jacobsen: How might smaller businesses or community initiatives better support LGBTQ+ events? As far as I know, that’s how it used to work, anyway.
Dempsey: Smaller businesses and community initiatives have always played a vital role in supporting Pride – and in many cities, they still do. But one barrier is cost. A lot of small, especially queer-owned, businesses simply can’t afford the high vendor or sponsorship fees at larger Pride events. One way to strengthen those relationships is for Pride organizers to offer more accessible pricing, like sliding scales or community-tiered options. That way, more businesses can participate meaningfully without being priced out.
It’s also important that support doesn’t only come from queer-owned businesses. Local small businesses – regardless of who owns them – should be showing their allyship for their LGBTQ+ communities year-round, with Pride being a great opportunity to do so.
Jacobsen: How can LGBTQ+ leaders and therapists reframe Pride, returning to the roots of resistance and empowerment?
Dempsey: Reframing Pride starts with remembering, and educating, on its origins – not just the celebration, but the protest led by trans women of color, sex workers, and other marginalized voices resisting systemic violence. Over time, especially in the 1990s and 2000s, Pride began shifting towards a more corporate, celebratory model. Much of that shift was influenced by increased visibility and legal victories.
Even in the 1980s, during the HIV/AIDS epidemic, Pride was deeply political. The community was grieving a tremendous loss while simultaneously fighting for survival, protesting government inaction, and finding power in collective mourning and celebration. That era showed that joy and resistance can coexist.
Today, LGBTQ+ leaders and therapists have the opportunity and responsibility to help bring Pride back to that coexistence. That means centering marginalized voices, education about our movements’ radical history, and fostering spaces where people can connect to activism, identity, and healing. Therapists can reframe Pride as a form of resistance to shame and erasure, helping people see their visibility as a powerful act in itself. Leaders can refocus Pride around community care, protest, and direct support – not just performance.
Pride shifted towards celebration due to legal victories, but those legal victories focused on some of the community, namely those who are sexually diverse, but it did not focus on all of the community. Silvia Rivera, in the 1970s, would often speak about how those, namely trans women of color, who started the movement, were being ignored in its progress. That still stands true today, as Pride remains a celebration while laws are being put in place to target the trans community.
Pride doesn’t lose meaning when it moves away from corporate influence – it regains it. By reconnecting to the spirit of resistance, we remind ourselves that Pride was never just about celebration. It was, and still is, about survival, liberation, and collective power.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Will.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/28
Azhar Majeed is the Director of Government Affairs at the Center for Inquiry (CFI), where he leads lobbying, policy strategy, and advocacy to defend secular government, science-based policy, and human rights. With a legal background and years of experience in public policy, Majeed works at the intersection of law, religion, and state, focusing on challenges to church–state separation, religious privilege in public institutions, and threats to reproductive freedom. He represents CFI in legislative battles across the United States, coordinates with allied organizations, and frequently speaks on the dangers of Christian nationalism and the importance of protecting secular democracy.
In this conversation, Scott Douglas Jacobsen interviews Majeed about President Trump’s “America Prays” initiative and its implications for secularism in the United States. Majeed situates the initiative within the broader Christian nationalist agenda, noting legal, cultural, and institutional risks. He highlights CFI’s advocacy against Ten Commandments laws, school chaplain bills, and efforts to inject biblical teaching into public curricula. The discussion also explores reproductive rights as a core church–state issue, the role of allies from secular and religious communities, and the urgent need for vigilance, litigation, and coalition-building.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Excellent. Today, we are here with Azhar Majeed, Director of Government Affairs at the Center for Inquiry. We are discussing President Trump’s “America Prays” initiative, announced at the Museum of the Bible on September 8, 2025, and framed as part of the run-up to the United States’ 250th birthday. The White House materials and coverage describe a call for Americans to pray one hour per week, often in groups of ten or more. This coincides with the general back-to-school period in the U.S. From a governmental and institutional perspective, what are your organizational thoughts so far?
Azhar Majeed: My initial thought is that this is consistent with what President Trump and his administration have been signalling: an agenda closely aligned with Christian nationalism. This announcement is one more example of that broader push.
It is troubling for several reasons and potentially harmful in multiple ways. When I saw the announcement and the White House-hosted event at the Museum of the Bible, it underscored the themes they have been advancing.
Jacobsen: Side note: how would you characterize the Museum of the Bible’s role here—symbolically or otherwise?
Majeed: Holding a White House event there is highly symbolic and indicative of the administration’s priorities. They could have staged it at the White House or another federal venue; placing it at the Museum of the Bible amplifies the message.
Jacobsen: As you know, we strongly support secularism—the state remaining neutral on religion. The administration also said the Department of Education will issue new guidance about prayer in public schools. What would constitutionally compliant guidance look like?
Majeed: A key point: students already have the right to engage in personal, voluntary prayer in public schools, provided it is not disruptive and not school-sponsored. That is a long-standing First Amendment doctrine, and federal guidance has repeatedly clarified this. Any new federal guidance should accurately restate these limits and avoid endorsing school-sponsored prayer.
What concerns me is not the protection of private student prayer—which is settled—but moves that push beyond those limits toward school-sanctioned prayer or allow teachers/administrators to impose their beliefs effectively. That would cross the constitutional line.
Jacobsen: And this is part of a broader Christian nationalist agenda. Some are simply supporters who cheer religious moves into the public arena, while others are consciously implementing that agenda. School prayer bills, Bible-based curricula, Ten Commandments mandates—some of these have already been struck down, such as the Louisiana Ten Commandments law, which you would know better than I would. What is CFI’s litigation and lobbying posture across this range of secular fronts?
Majeed: There is a lot to unpack there. I can first speak to our lobbying efforts, since I head up CFI’s Office of Public Policy as Director of Government Affairs. My direct involvement is lobbying against these bills and state initiatives.
You correctly noted that the Louisiana Ten Commandments law was invalidated in federal court. Our litigation arm continues to pursue challenges to Ten Commandments mandates and similar laws. However, that is just one piece. In addition, there are school chaplain bills, which would allow public schools to hire religious chaplains in student service roles such as guidance counselors or social workers. You also have school prayer bills, which push far beyond what First Amendment law allows in terms of school-sponsored prayer. There is a wide range of theocratic legislation being advanced at the state level.
Jacobsen: This is not a black-and-white issue. There are allies, including many religious people who are appalled by these efforts, whether because they see one interpretation of Christianity being privileged over another, or because they recognize the imposition of one religion over others. Moreover, of course, nonreligious Americans are denied equal standing altogether. Who are the allies in this fight, and how are they helping with defensive efforts?
Majeed: I would give a twofold answer. First, there are many secular organizations like CFI engaged in this struggle: the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU), American Atheists, the American Humanist Association, and both national and state-level chapters of the ACLU. We at CFI are proud to stand alongside these allies.
Second, there are policymakers and lawmakers at the state level who are doing admirable work standing up against this wave of theocratic legislation. One good example is James Talarico, a legislator in Texas, who has consistently spoken out against these bills. What makes his stance powerful is that he is open about being a devout Christian. He emphasizes that while his faith is important to him, advancing Christianity in public schools and imposing religious beliefs on a captive audience of students is not acceptable. That kind of messaging resonates strongly and underscores the harm these bills can cause.
Jacobsen: CFI recently filed written testimony supporting California AB67, a bill to strengthen enforcement of reproductive rights. For context, Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2022 by the Dobbs decision. We now live in a post-Roe, Dobbs decision world. Where do reproductive rights defence and church–state separation reinforce each other within CFI’s overall governmental affairs strategy, in your view?
Majeed: To me, reproductive rights—protecting the freedom to make decisions for oneself, to exercise bodily autonomy—are very much a matter of church–state separation. That is because the bans on abortion, bans on medicated abortion, and other restrictions we have seen are driven by the religious right, pushed by Christian nationalists. These laws amount to the imposition of religious dogma upon others.
The basis for much of this legislation is explicitly religious and theocratic. So, opposing those efforts and protecting people’s right to reproductive choice is both a church–state separation issue and a science issue. For advocates of science and public health, these rights are essential. When you see measures that attempt to roll back decades of progress, it becomes incumbent upon organizations like CFI to fight back.
Jacobsen: It should also be noted that many of the rollbacks on reproductive rights rest on the claim that life begins at conception. That is a religious position rooted in Catholic theology, though echoed in some other denominations. This makes reproductive rights a key church–state separation issue as well.
All right—let us turn to schools. Guardrails, policies, staff training, parent communications: What should districts adopt to uphold neutrality while respecting individual rights in a society that values individual freedom?
Majeed: The short answer is: follow the law. For decades, First Amendment doctrine has provided consistent guidance on what students’ rights are in public schools, as well as the rights of teachers. Teachers do have their own rights, but they do not have the right to impose narrow religious views on a captive audience of impressionable students.
We already see that happening in some cases, and now state legislatures are codifying it and pushing the boundaries further. That is inherently dangerous. If you are a school administrator or district leader, you should start by consulting legal experts, but the foundation is simply following the law.
For example, the First Amendment allows students to pray silently in school. That right is not taken away. However, it does not allow school-sanctioned prayer or Bible study in public classrooms. In a pluralistic secular democracy, teachers cannot impose their religious views on impressionable young students.
So if you are a school administrator, it is your duty to maintain a firm stance of neutrality when it comes to religion. You want to avoid government entanglement with matters of faith and the private beliefs of students and teachers. Moreover, that is precisely why these state-level bills pose such a significant danger.
Jacobsen: We are only—depending on whether you count from January, November, or December—about nine months into the second Trump administration. They have certainly come out firing on all cylinders. What would signal success in terms of secular advocacy within the next nine months or so?
Majeed: That is a difficult question to answer. I do not claim to have all the answers, but I will do my best to provide them. First, it should not be surprising that they have come out aggressively. They essentially told us what the playbook would be—we all saw Project 2025 and its contents. Much of this was laid out before January 2025.
In terms of what success would look like, I would start at the state level. CFI aims to push back against as many theocratic bills as possible in state legislatures. There are many states and numerous harmful bills, so we can only do so much. However, I think we have done a good job prioritizing—identifying the worst, most unconstitutional proposals, and choosing where to fight.
In another nine or eighteen months, I hope to see CFI, along with our allies, defeat many more of these attempts, as there will undoubtedly be many more.
At the federal level, there is also plenty of work to do—both defending church–state separation and protecting science. The real question is whether we can limit the damage and mitigate the harm by presenting a strong, united front against this assault on secular democracy.
Finally, part of the answer lies in litigation. When these laws pass, it becomes essential for CFI and allied organizations to challenge them in court and seek victories through litigation.
Jacobsen: What other advocacy items should be mentioned that I have not covered—things I might miss as someone not plugged in 24/7 like full-time staff or dedicated volunteers?
Majeed: One dangerous element that deserves more attention is the push to inject Christianity into public school curricula. It has not received as much scrutiny as, say, the Ten Commandments bills.
Jacobsen: You do not mean Christianity taught as part of a world religions class, where students learn what Christians believe in various forms, but rather classrooms being used to endorse Christianity?
Majeed: Correct, and let me clarify. This is not “let us teach world religions—here is Buddhism, here is Hinduism, here is Christianity, here is Islam, and so on.” These are efforts to infuse Christian teachings and biblical lessons into public school curricula.
The most prominent examples have taken place in Texas and Oklahoma. In Texas, there is what is called the Bluebonnet Curriculum. It infuses classes like social studies and language arts with biblical content and Christian teachings.
We have seen similar efforts in Oklahoma over the past few years. The State Department of Education, led by Ryan Walters—a well-known Christian nationalist—has pushed public school districts to adopt biblical teachings and Bible study. They have even used funding threats, essentially telling districts they could lose state money if they do not comply with this religious mandate.
That leaves educators caught in a challenging position: either lose vital funding or knowingly violate their students’ constitutional rights. These are harmful developments, and I highlight them because they have not received as much attention as the more inflammatory pieces of legislation, even though they are just as dangerous.
Jacobsen: Azhar, very lovely to meet you. Thank you very much for your expertise today. Go team!
Majeed: Thanks very much. I was happy to speak with you today. I should add that I thought your questions were excellent—you have clearly done your homework and know the material well. I appreciate your questions because they covered much significant ground. There is no shortage of issues at both the state and national levels, but I enjoyed the conversation. Thank you for your time.
Jacobsen: Excellent. Bye.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/27
I have known several suicidal people,
often quite intimately,
too much so.
What is one to do there?
Consider:
Life from their point of view.
Life not as something visual,
but life as a sentiment inside.
What is that feeling for them?
Enter the ‘skin’ of the other,
not too long, not a fun place.
The feeling for them, immense:
“Pain swells as the future closes.”
“I am ruined beyond repair.”
“Alone, unwanted, and a burden.”
“Body screams, then goes numb.”
“Mind tunnels; choices vanish fast.”
“Fear fades; action feels impossible.”
“Storm rises, control slips away.”
“Sudden calm hides imminent danger.”
Ruined, unwanted, numb, tunnel,
fear, storm, slip, calm, danger,
immanence.
What is one to do there?
Often,
your presence,
to their immanence,
is all you can do,
for them.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/27
Alexis Rockman (b. 1962, New York City) is a leading painter of the Anthropocene, known for richly researched images that reimagine natural history through ecology and genetics. A School of Visual Arts graduate, he combines fieldwork with studio invention, sometimes using soil and organic materials for his “field drawings.” Museum highlights include A Fable for Tomorrow at the Smithsonian American Art Museum. He contributed concept art to Ang Lee’s Life of Pi. Signature projects—Manifest Destiny, The Great Lakes Cycle, and Oceanus—stage dramas of adaptation, collapse, and resilience, marrying scientific attention to detail with a storyteller’s moral sense of consequence and scale.
In this interview with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Rockman reflects on UN climate diplomacy, his skepticism about political will, and the contraction of the art world. He contrasts art’s precarious economics with its enduring symbolic value, engages with AI’s creative disruptions, and emphasizes how cycles of expansion and collapse shape both global politics and the contemporary art industry.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: All right, welcome to round one of To Grouse and Kvetch, formerly titled—what was it? To Bitch and To Moan? One proposal was…
Alexis Rockman: Whining and Complaining? Yeah, I don’t whine and complain. Bitching and Moaning?
Jacobsen: That’s right. Today, our source is United Nations News, dated September 16. UN Secretary-General António Guterres urged world leaders to “get serious — and deliver,” as they began arriving in New York for High-Level Week at the 80th session of the UN General Assembly. He’s been around for a while. He’s been active in politics for decades—Portugal’s prime minister in the 1990s and later UN High Commissioner for Refugees—so these kinds of calls have been made before by leaders like Ban Ki-moon and Kofi Annan. Is this a routine you’ve seen before?
Rockman: Yes, and it’s also routine to get stuck in traffic when you’re in the city.
Jacobsen: How much of this diplomacy works, and how much does it not?
Rockman: You’re asking me? Yes. Let’s just say I’ve never been more skeptical—that’s my answer. The issues—what are the issues? Where is climate change in all this? These things feel petty in comparison, as far as I’m concerned.
Jacobsen: Why do you think climate change has taken a back seat?
Rockman: I think it’s extremely—well, to quote the uncharismatic leader Al Gore… I can’t even remember the name of his movie. An Inconvenient Truth–and the sequel An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power. There’s no will.
Jacobsen: Do you think part of this has to do with the United States—relative to other nations—experiencing some decline, while also making conscious geopolitical moves to withdraw from parts of the international stage?
Rockman: How about it’s withdrawing from the Age of Reason? Sure, that’s fair. That doesn’t help, but I don’t see much happening elsewhere either. Let’s just say it’s an insult added to disaster.
Jacobsen: In his opening messages around High-Level Week, the Secretary-General flagged peace and security, climate, responsible innovation and tech governance, gender equality, development financing, and UN reform among the priorities for this session. We also keep hearing about restructuring pressures tied to funding shortfalls—major players reducing or delaying contributions. This was mentioned outside of chambers when I was at the United Nations in Geneva, covering some events in the Summer. What are your impressions of those priorities actually advancing in a meaningful way when the wealthiest states are stepping back from multilateral institutions? Reduced funding, restructuring—and yet the same recurring goals year after year.
Rockman: What do you want me to say?
Jacobsen: We are all one.
Rockman: We are the world.
Jacobsen: I can pull up the Deepak Chopra quote generator.
Rockman: Scott, I don’t know, man. I might not be the right person for a pithy conversation about this stuff. I really am just… Let’s just say there’s a level of futility when it comes to even having conversations about this. Having to face children and tell them how bleak it is is no walk in the park. Let’s just put it that way.
Jacobsen: Now, arguments are made about the central role of music in activism. In the 1990s and 2000s, they were huge on “We Are the World” type of music. Michael Jackson had his whole thing. He had his other issues, but he had that public thing. These were sort of heartwarming efforts, let’s say. People had this image of a Care Bear version of art and activism, where you just shoot care out of your heart and things magically improve. What’s the state of art and activism now?
Rockman: Well, I don’t really know, because I don’t really see that much activism in the art industry at this point. One thing you might not be aware of is that, for the last couple of months, there’s been a sense of dread and terror in the art industry, because the perception is nobody’s able to sell anything. This is, of course, a generalization, but there’s a feeling of contraction. Galleries are closing. Artists and professional acquaintances of mine are complaining that it’s tough to keep the lights on. There’s a real sense of terror.
On the other hand, I’ve spoken to people who think that’s just a myth—an “if it bleeds, it leads” type of scenario being pushed by what’s left of the art press. And that would be natural: natural ebbs and flows. Each gallery has its own explanation for why it closed.
Jacobsen: There are two lines of questioning there. One, why is the art press contracting?
Rockman: To the art press—well, the art press is press in general, and journalism, as you know, is hanging on by a thread, if at all. For most of my career, if you had a show up, you’d count the Fridays, because that was the day the New York Times would run reviews. You’d ask yourself, “How many Fridays do I have left before I’m not getting a review?” Those things really mattered. Now, with my last couple of shows, I couldn’t even tell you if I cared whether the Times reviewed them. That used to be the holy grail—along with the Village Voice when Roberta Smith, Peter Schjeldahl, and Jerry Saltz were writing, and later New York Magazine. But now it’s all social media.
Jacobsen: What about historical periods when there have been more protracted ebbs and flows? When expansions were quite expansive and contractions were quite contractive.
Rockman: Well, Scott, you can go back. First of all, the 1970s were, from my perspective, a very bleak moment—unless you were a minimalist sculptor or a conceptual artist not making objects. There wasn’t a lot of money around to buy art. Then, with Reagan and the lowering of interest rates, the art market exploded, and suddenly people wanted to buy paintings and things they could hang on their walls. It was about status, and that was great for artists. That’s where I started my career in 1984–85, when if you couldn’t make a living as an artist, there was something wrong with you. Then, of course, the stock market crash in 1987 happened. That didn’t really affect me for some reason. After that came 9/11, which was a contraction. Then, in 2008, with the housing crisis, there was another contraction—and that one I suffered through. But the 1987 crash and 9/11 didn’t really affect me much. Now, the problem, Scott, is that there’s really no clear explanation other than Trump and the uncertainty about what’s going to happen in the world. The stock market’s doing fine, but there are a lot of worries and unknowns. And I don’t need to tell you—when I’m doing a show in Paris, I don’tknow how tariffs will affect that. I haven’t had that discussion, but I’m sure it can’t be good.
Jacobsen: I mean, what about the press that’s still being done on art? What are the contours of that? Has the style of commentary changed? Has the quality of commentary changed?
Rockman: They don’t even read it. I don’t pay attention. I just don’t. And that’s how much things have changed.
Jacobsen: Are there any aspects of art that you look forward to?
Rockman: Oh, I love doing a show in New York. Don’t get me wrong—I love what I do. I’m just observing how things have changed. And I’m not even grieving over it. It’s just an observation. I mean, I do love journalism. And my wife is a writer and has been a journalist. I think journalism has basically kept the West—speaking truth to power is the mechanism that prevents democracies and states from becoming totalitarian. Or at least it used to.
Jacobsen: Have you done any collaborations with artists in other regions of the world that are war-torn? Would you be open to this?
Rockman: Sure, I’d be open to it.
Jacobsen: Have you done any war-based art?
Rockman: War on biodiversity. A bucket of war. But all joking aside, yes, I have.
Jacobsen: For instance, in Afghanistan, they’ve had a series of earthquakes. It’s a highly repressive society currently, since the U.S. withdrawal under Biden. When you see tragedies like this in the news, and you connect them to environmental themes, you also have civilian casualties.
Rockman: Earthquakes have nothing to do with what I’m talking about. That’s just a natural disaster. It has nothing to do with humans.
Jacobsen: Right, right. That’s fair.
Rockman: I mean, it’s a tragedy, and I feel bad for everyone involved, including pets, livestock, and so on. Of course.
Jacobsen: What about tropical landscapes? Have you done any art around that?
Rockman: Of course.
Jacobsen: Climate change?
Rockman: Absolutely.
Jacobsen: Anything Indonesian?
Rockman: I’ve never been to Indonesia, but I’ve done work on Central and South America, as well as Africa, including Madagascar.
Jacobsen: Yes, there have been climate initiatives around Indonesia. It’s particularly known for rich peatlands and biodiversity… According to UN News, billions continue to breathe polluted air that causes more than 4.5 million premature deaths every year, according to UN climate experts. Lorenzo Labrador, a scientific officer at the World Meteorological Organization, said, “Air quality respects no boundaries. The smoke and pollution from the wildfires in this breakaway season in the Iberian Peninsula have already been detected over Western Europe. They can travel throughout the rest of the European continent.”
Rockman: Yeah, absolutely. How much help? My wife was in Provence in France this Summer. Fires changed the whole landscape. I think they were from Portugal.
Jacobsen: Are you talking about the ash or the actual fire that stretched up to there?
Rockman: Smoke.
Jacobsen: Yes, we get a lot more of those in British Columbia now.
Rockman: No—the forest fires in Canada, the smoke coming down, that was here like two weeks ago. No boundaries. Stand on your side of the fence.
Jacobsen: A lot of the art you do is on a 2D surface. How do you convey—or how would you convey—a lack of borders around air pollution on such a canvas? I don’t know, because I’m just curious. It’s inherently a bounded frame.
Rockman: That’s not really a painting issue, that type of thing. You have to make that choice. It has to go off the edge of the rectangle somewhere.
Jacobsen: I spent the weekend with a friend in Vancouver. I was doing a little trip to visit small colleagues at a horse farm and so on, from the Model United Nations. One colleague and I went to the Vancouver Art Gallery, and we saw one piece—a totem pole. The difference about this totem pole was that it was actually made out of golf bags. The commentary was around a few First Nations bands who had leased their land for golf courses. That’s funny. I thought it was great. I forgot the artist’s name off the top of my head. They’re about 50. When you think of conveying an idea about the environment, do you deliberate whether to stick to a 2D surface or to do sculpting or sculpture?
Rockman: I’ve never done that. I spent a couple of years doing 3D-ish work in the 1990s, but I’m pretty happy with the limitations of painting.
Jacobsen: Has anyone taken 2D surfaces—such as paintings—and arranged them in clever ways to convey a point?
Rockman: Of course. That’s an age-old story, from having gold leaf on frescoes to Rauschenberg sticking a chair or a mattress on a canvas. That’s been around for millennia.
Jacobsen: So, Petteri Taalas, Secretary-General of the World Meteorological Organization, and the Global Atmosphere Watch (GAW) program noted: “When we see that countries, regions, or cities are taking measures to fight against bad air quality, it works.” He continued: “Despite recent improvements, air quality remains a significant public health concern.” This actually goes back to your point about will. According to leading experts, when countries work at it, it makes an impact. If they don’t, it doesn’t. And if it’s getting worse, then we’re not working at it. He also pointed out that the problem is that technology needs to reach more people.
Rockman: What technology is that?
Jacobsen: That’s a good question. Cleaner cooking technology, for example, according to Martina Otto. So yes, that’sactually a good point. If we want climate-change attenuation efforts to succeed, newer technologies reaching a wider range of people is going to be a big necessity. And the more affluent nations need to reduce their overall carbon footprint. The problem is that, even with more efficient technology year on year, our carbon footprint continues to rise because our so-called “needs” rise proportionally.
Rockman: You know, AI—thank God for AI.
Jacobsen: That’s right. There’s an interesting cross-section there: the massive datasets of copyrighted and non-copyrighted material used to train these neural networks, and then the enormous water and energy costs of running these gargantuan, gigawatt-scale data centers to maximize compute.
Rockman: Count me in.
Jacobsen: And we’ve done a little commentary on AI before. You made a really subtle point in an obvious way: at first glance, it looks good because it resembles something you’ve seen before—because it is, in fact, everything you’ve seen before. But you didn’t think that was really a threat to the art industry as a whole.
Rockman: My feelings about that and my behaviour around it have changed since May. I’ve actually been using it quite often for various things. I’m more frightened of it than I was. It’s better than I thought it would be, and it’s worse than I thought it would be. I’ve learned a lot about what it can and can’t do. From my perspective, 90% of what it generates is complete nonsense—you give it a prompt with a reference, and it’s like someone from Mars came up with something that makes no sense. But about 5% of the time, maybe 8%, it produces something that resembles something useful. And then 1–2% of the time, it’s absolutely amazing. It really helped me with a couple of projects since I spoke to you. I never would have been able to solve the problem without it. I just locked in—I stumbled onto this one image.
Jacobsen: That error rate—false positives versus true positives in terms of what you’re aiming for—basically requires the models to better align with our cultural and cognitive sensibilities about what feels like correct physics. That’ll improve that 8%.
Rockman: Oh yeah, yeah. It’s going to get so much better. I don’t know what it’s going to do to me personally as a professional artist, but I think it’s revolutionary, to say the least. I’ve been watching YouTube talks from various experts predicting 90% unemployment in Western populations. And the implications of that? That’s truly unknown territory.
Jacobsen: What other commentaries have you heard from artists on this?
Rockman: Some are like, “Forget that. I hate that stuff. I’m never going there.” And others use it all the time.
Jacobsen: Sounds like it was over wine.
Rockman: Yeah—W-H-I-N-E. Some people do, some people don’t. My wife, who’s a writer and an artist, doesn’t. She has none of it.
Jacobsen: You consistently state it goes back to economics. When you stipulate it’s back to economics, and you’retalking about 90% unemployment as a hypothetical, what does this mean for the art industry, particularly in terms of making a livelihood?
Rockman: Which industry?
Jacobsen: The art industry—particularly those who are vulnerable because they create pieces that may not have strict economic viability. For example, political activists who do their art.
Rockman: There is no economic viability. Plumbers and dentists have strict economic viability. Art has nothing to do with that. There’s no guarantee. There’s no need. The desire for art has somehow been created, much like the desire for diamonds.
Jacobsen: So then does it basically transition from an industry of the precariat to an industry of the hyper-precariat?
Rockman: Yeah. I mean, who knows what’s going to happen? No—it could also be that handmade objects, things related to intimacy, and the qualities that make humans enjoyable might be more valued than ever in this culture. I don’t know.
Jacobsen: Sort of a niche.
Rockman: It’s like rare book collectors or dealers—some of them are booming because it’s the antidote to the rest of the culture.
Jacobsen: Yes, in Vancouver, there’s a guy who does bookbinding. He’s a big bodybuilding guy. I was travelling with myfriend. He has a family line of it, from London. I asked him, “What’s the rarest or coolest thing you’ve got?” And they would get things like first editions of Shakespeare.
Or something based on a monastery document from the 8th century. And it’s like, what makes it last so long? The old pulp was delicious. Or they used animal skin. And so, yeah—that seems to be an industry that still has appeal.
Rockman: You know, like autographs.
Jacobsen: Like, why? It’s a broader conversation. What does this magical move signify—that it’s official?
Rockman: In The Wolf of Wall Street, that Matthew McConaughey monologue he improvised—he basically gives, I can’tremember the exact text, but it was about creating smoke and mirrors. Look it up on YouTube. He’s sitting there with Leonardo DiCaprio, who’s very earnest, asking, “How do you create value in this?” And McConaughey basically says it’sabout perception and illusion.
Jacobsen: Looking at Indonesia and places that are going to be climatically hit, do they produce art that comes out of that sort of hardship? Does that typically happen?
Rockman: Yes, I’m sure there’s some sort of scene in Jakarta or elsewhere, but I have no perception of it. That’s the interesting thing about this show in India that I might be doing. I looked at the gallery’s website—I don’t know any of the artists. They’re all Indian. It’s its own ecosystem. Very few artists break out of their national or regional context, though it does happen. Anish Kapoor, for example, who moved to London as a child.
Jacobsen: Are those contexts the same as they’ve always been? Or are artistic communes shifting? Is it more global than ever?
Rockman: Yes, the gallery in India is run by Peter Nagy. I’ve known him since 1985. He’s also an interesting artist. He ran a gallery in New York with his business partner, Alan Belcher. It was called Nature Morte, and it was a significant East Village gallery that focused on conceptual art. It created a context where you could be a painter and still be taken seriously in a conceptual art framework. I never did a show with them, and I didn’t even know Peter liked my work until last week. However, the idea that painting could be part of conceptual discourse was significant. Historically, they were separate—painters were thought of as “emotional”, and many conceptual artists frowned on painting.. Bringing those worlds together was always my goal. I learned a lot from being around those guys and others early in my career, when I was 23 and wanted to have my cake and eat it too. I wanted to make paintings that were cool but also smart.
Jacobsen: What age were they then?
Rockman: Around 28 or 30.
Jacobsen: And who were the people in their 60s then—the seniors in the industry?
Rockman: At that time? Roy Lichtenstein, Jasper Johns, Robert Rauschenberg, a lot of the artists who showed with Leo Castelli or Marian Goodman, and Gerhard Richter, people like that.
Jacobsen: Did you meet any of these people?
Rockman: I met Rauschenberg. I met John once. Lichtenstein, I did not meet. Richter, I’ve never met, but I’ve met many artists of that stature—just not those specific ones.
Jacobsen: What did they complain about back in the day?
Rockman: Every artist thinks they’re underappreciated. That’s a running joke. Whenever I complain about something, my wife tells me that..
Jacobsen: So your friends, yourself, and other artists—you’re basically saying they make the same type of complaints as those artists did back then?
Rockman: I’d be hard-pressed to get someone of that stature to say something like that to me directly at the time. But I’d suspect that is the case- it’s the human condition, right?
Jacobsen: Yes, I’m just looking at what we might call the Universal Kvetching Factor of Artists.
Rockman: That’s the brand, right? Everyone feels underappreciated. I’m looking forward to the day I feel overappreciated.
Jacobsen: Any final thoughts before we go?
Rockman: What is going to happen in this country? It’s so incredibly volatile. Fascinating. I hate that term “unknown territory,” but that is really where we are.
Jacobsen: The old is new.
Rockman: It happened before, it’ll happen again—just with a different wrinkle. Who said this? Marx? “The first time is tragedy, the second time is farce.”
Jacobsen: The line between tragedy and comedy. Thank you very much for your time. I’ll see you next week.
Rockman: Okay, we’ll figure it out.
Jacobsen: Excellent, thank you.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/26
Charles Karel Bouley, professionally known as Karel, is a trailblazing LGBTQ broadcaster, entertainer, and activist. As half of the first openly gay duo in U.S. drive-time radio, he made history while shaping California law on LGBTQ wrongful death cases. Karel rose to prominence as the #1 talk show host on KFI AM 640 in Los Angeles and KGO AM 810 in San Francisco, later expanding to Free Speech TV and the Karel Cast podcast. His work spans journalism (HuffPost, The Advocate, Billboard), television (CNN, MSNBC), and music. A voting member of NARAS, GALECA, and SAG-AFTRA, Karel now lives and creates in Las Vegas.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Karel Bouley discussed the dramatic assassination of Charlie Kirk, the arrest of 22-year-old Tyler Robinson, and the political fallout. Their conversation explored U.S. gun violence, Trump’s rhetoric, and LGBTQ community responses. They examined Canada’s precedent-setting asylum cases for LGBTQ Americans, Rainbow Railroad’s surge in calls, and the persistence of discriminatory bathroom bans. The discussion also highlighted global LGBTQ struggles, from incremental progress in Hong Kong to renewed repression in Russia and Chechnya. Bouley reflected on compassion, political violence, and the need for measured responses amid escalating polarization and human rights challenges.
Interview conducted September 12, 2025
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: We have a busy week. We begin with the most dramatic moment: the killing of Charlie Kirk—widely described by authorities and media as a targeted political assassination. I watched some of the footage. A listener sent me a video from only a few feet away. It shows Kirk being struck in the neck. He did not survive.
Karel Bouley: From what I know of medicine, a catastrophic neck wound—likely involving the carotid artery—can be unsurvivable, and that appears consistent with reports and the video evidence. Investigators say the shot came from a distance; early briefings and verified videos indicate a single round was fired from a nearby rooftop, roughly a few hundred feet away, on the order of 200 yards or 600 feet.
As of this morning, a 22-year-old Utah man, Tyler Robinson, is in custody and charged with aggravated murder in Kirk’s death. Prosecutors say they will seek the death penalty. Reported evidence includes DNA linking Robinson to the rifle and text messages that appear to acknowledge planning and intent.
Some online claim the identified suspect could not have executed a precise long-range shot; however, law enforcement has outlined specific forensic and digital evidence supporting the charges. At this stage, there is no confirmed evidence of a broader conspiracy or co-conspirators.
Context around the moment of the shooting: witnesses and coverage say Kirk had been taking a question about mass shootings—often in the context of debates over transgender issues—just before the attack. Official agencies have not released any verified details about the inscription on the firearm or ammunition.
One unusual aspect: President Donald Trump publicly confirmed Kirk’s death shortly after it happened and has been highly visible since, including remarks abroad and plans to attend the funeral. Federal agencies say they’re elevating security for the memorial. Presidential confirmation is atypical; typically, authorities or family announce first, but that’s the sequence here.
In LGBTQ spaces, there’s an honest debate about calls for compassion toward Kirk given his record on LGBTQ rights and rhetoric. Whatever one’s view, political assassination is unacceptable in a democracy. You argue, you organize, you vote—you do not kill. That principle has to hold even when emotions are white-hot.
This case also slots into a grim backdrop: gun violence in the U.S. remains pervasive. The killing has already become a political cudgel; Trump and allies have blamed “the left,” while investigators have not presented evidence tying the suspect to any organized group. That leap—from grief to partisan accusation without facts—only deepens the danger.
They have already said he’s a leftist activist and that the left killed Charlie Kirk. That’s irresponsible. It’s also not factual. This is an evolving, troubling story. Gays and lesbians are making it clear they’re not going to miss him. That’s fair. It’s fair to say they’re not going to miss him. There’s a difference between dancing on a grave and simply not showing empathy. I don’t think anyone should delight in his death. I don’t believe so responsible gays, lesbians, or trans people are delighting in his death. I think they’re not upset about it.
I’m upset because it’s another case of gun violence against a public figure in America. It makes me reluctant to do live performances because I can be a galvanizing figure. It has made this an even scarier time in this country. We’ll see how it plays out.
What we know now is that the alleged shooter is in custody. Authorities allegedly have video of him coming off the roof. They claim to have a fingerprint on their forearm. I’ve looked into forensic pathology, and there’s no such thing as a forearm print. It’s not used like a fingerprint. There’s nothing uniquely identifiable on your forearm. But perhaps there’s new technology I’m unaware of.
They also claim to have a partial palm print. Palm prints are not conclusive, but they can be suggestive. We’ll see. Allegedly, he told his father he did it. We don’t know, and we won’t know for some time. What we do know is that Trump has seized the moment to further galvanize his base against the left.
Charlie Kirk was a father and a husband. I wouldn’t debate him, but he had every right to say and do what he wanted.
Jacobsen: The following item is exciting: the Rainbow Railroad, which helps gays, lesbians, and trans people escape from countries where being LGBTQ is punishable by death or criminalized. They’ve had an 800 percent increase in calls from the United States.
There are currently two precedent-setting cases in Canada. Gay people sought asylum, and the judges did not summarily dismiss the cases. The judges are examining whether it may be dangerous for a trans person to live in Arizona. These cases could set a precedent: gays and lesbians seeking asylum in Canada or elsewhere based on anti-LBGTQ rhetoric in the United States.
Bouley: The Kirk shooting directly plays into this story. I anticipate Rainbow Railroad will receive even more calls because anti-gay and anti-trans rhetoric will increase after the shooting. If it turns out the shooter was a trans activist—which I doubt, but if claimed—it will make Rainbow Railroad even busier. We’ll see how the Canadian cases are adjudicated.
Jacobsen: The next issue is the South Carolina bathroom ban.
Bouley: It’s 2025, and we’re still debating bathrooms.
Jacobsen: The Supreme Court essentially deferred to the lower courts. Two courts have already ruled that the ban is discriminatory. SCOTUS let those rulings stand, but hasn’t given a final ruling because it wants first to address other cases related to the legality and fairness of bathroom bans.
Bouley: It’s a ridiculous distraction. Meanwhile, Consumer Reports released data this week showing that prices are soaring across groceries and everything else. There’s a lot we could be focusing on, but instead, the Supreme Court is tied up debating bathrooms.
Trans people should be able to use the bathroom of their gender—the gender they are living in. We’ll see. The two Canadian asylum cases are still sub judice; they haven’t been fully adjudicated. I don’t think the Supreme Court will side with trans people broadly, but in this ruling, they effectively did, since they didn’t overturn the lower courts. We’ll see how it plays out, as other pending cases will likely dictate the outcome.
Jacobsen: What else should we know?
Bouley: There’s the case in Georgia. A sheriff’s deputy was prescribed gender-affirming care—essentially gender reassignment surgery—by her doctor. Her workplace refused to pay for it, so she sued, arguing it was discrimination under the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the same Act Charlie Kirk denounced.
A lower court agreed with her and ruled it was discrimination. Another court also agreed. However, the Court of Federal Appeals disagreed, ruling that it was not discrimination. They argued that denying gender-affirming care is not a discriminatory healthcare practice. She could appeal to the Supreme Court. If she does, it will be up to them to decide whether workplaces must cover gender-affirming care.
If it were any other medical procedure, she likely would have been approved. But because it was gender-affirming, it was denied. The lower courts ruled that it was discriminatory. The upper court said no, framing it as an elective procedure. They concluded insurance isn’t required to pay for elective procedures. It’ll probably end up in the Supreme Court.
Bouley: Since we last spoke, Tyler Robinson has been arrested and named as the suspect in the Charlie Kirk shooting. He’s 22. Allegedly, his father turned him in. Reports say there were Discord messages between him and his roommate about the gun and about etching the bullets. He also discussed on September 10, the day of the shooting—or the night before—with family members about Kirk coming to town and how he hated his viewpoints.
The bullet etchings, investigators claim, were anti-gay. One reportedly said, “If you can read this, you’re gay LOL.” Another was the lyrics to the Italian song Ciao Bella. I’m not sure how they’re interpreting those as anti-gay, but they certainly weren’t pro-gay. Robinson is not trans and not gay.
Jacobsen: What about his political leanings?
Bouley: He didn’t vote for Donald Trump or Joe Biden. In fact, he hasn’t voted in the last two presidential elections. According to the Utah election board, his party affiliation is none. He’s unaffiliated—neither left-wing liberal nor right-wing MAGA. It’s unclear what his motive was. Some people are saying he’s already confessed.
It all feels a bit too neat. But that said, it undermines the narrative that this was a left-wing terrorist or trans activist. That is clearly not the case if Robinson is indeed the shooter. Officials are calling him a suspect and a person of interest. He has been arrested and charged with reckless discharge of a firearm, murder, and one other offence.
Trump is calling for the death penalty. I had to check whether Utah has it—and it does. This would be a state case, not federal, since it wasn’t on federal land. The governor of Utah is calling for calm, while Trump is escalating rhetoric. So we have two competing voices: one urging restraint, the other inflaming the situation.
Jacobsen: If Utah pursues the death penalty, how would that work?
Bouley: It would be up to a jury. They’d first have to find him guilty, and then, in a separate penalty phase, decide unanimously on the death penalty. So, we’ll see how it plays out.
Right now, the prosecution’s narrative is neat, tied up in a bow. But Robinson doesn’t fit the story that Trump and MAGA wanted. He isn’t a left-wing radical. He isn’t a Democrat. He didn’t vote for Kamala Harris—or anyone, for that matter. That erases the claim that he was some trans or gay activist, or a leftist ideologue. He appears to be neither.
Since we last spoke, Tyler Robinson has been arrested and named as the suspect in the Charlie Kirk shooting. He’s 22. Allegedly, his father turned him in. Reports say there were Discord messages between him and his roommate about the gun and about etching the bullets. He also discussed on September 10—the day of the shooting, or the night before—with family members about Kirk coming to town and how he hated his viewpoints.
The bullet etchings, investigators claim, were anti-gay. One reportedly said, “If you can read this, you’re gay LOL.” Another was the lyrics to the Italian song Ciao Bella. I’m not sure how those are being interpreted as anti-gay, but they certainly weren’t pro-gay. Robinson is not trans and not gay.
Jacobsen: What about his political record?
Bouley: He didn’t vote for Donald Trump or Joe Biden. In fact, he hasn’t voted in the last two presidential elections. According to the Utah election board, his party affiliation is none. He’s unaffiliated—neither left-wing liberal nor right-wing MAGA. It’s unclear what his motive was. Some people are saying he’s already confessed.
It all feels too neat. But it undermines the narrative that this was a left-wing terrorist or a trans activist. That clearly isn’t the case if Robinson is indeed the shooter. Officials are calling him a suspect, a person of interest. He has been arrested and charged with reckless discharge of a firearm, murder, and one other count.
Trump is calling for the death penalty. I had to check whether Utah has it—and it does. This is a state case, not a federal case, since the crime didn’t occur on federal land. Meanwhile, the governor of Utah is calling for calm, while Trump is escalating rhetoric: two competing voices: one urging restraint, the other inflaming the situation.
Jacobsen: What about Hong Kong?
Bouley: Hong Kong is schizophrenic at the moment. There’s a story of two lesbians who had a child through in vitro fertilization. Hong Kong has now recognized both women as parents and granted them parental rights—a first for Hong Kong. At the same time, their parliament turned down same-sex marriage.
Now there’s a bill under consideration to at least give same-sex partners some benefits. They’re struggling. It mirrors what happened in the United States: some states introduced domestic partnerships that carried maybe 20 or 25 of the benefits of marriage. That served as a buffer until same-sex marriage became legal nationwide.
So it sounds as if Hong Kong may be moving toward something like domestic partnerships, but we don’t know yet. It’s still tied up in their courts and parliament. For now, the recognition of both mothers as parents will help other same-sex couples raising children.
Jacobsen: So, while they rejected same-sex marriage, they might allow partnership benefits?
Bouley: This week, the bill was moving forward, and next week we should see a ruling. It’s difficult in countries—predominantly Asian nations—with strong stigma against LGBTQ couples. But they are coming into the 21st century and realizing gay couples won’t simply accept erasure. Courts are increasingly siding with LGBTQ people, so governments are under pressure.
Meanwhile, in Russia, we’re seeing the opposite. There’s a massive influx of gay refugees into Spain because Putin is cracking down again. Remember, while Chechnya is semi-autonomous, its leader listens to Putin. There’s a concentration camp in Chechnya—a former World War II site—now being used to detain suspected gay people.
There’s a documentary called Welcome to Chechnya that covers this. It won awards. It was produced with the involvement of Jesse Tyler Ferguson, the red-haired actor from Modern Family. He helped bring attention to it.
So yes, Chechnya has operated a concentration camp for at least five years, targeting gay men or anyone accused of being gay. All it takes is an allegation, and someone can disappear. It’s an effective tool for eliminating political enemies, and it continues with Putin’s blessing.
Russia is now cracking down further. Gay clubs, organizations—anything public—are being shut down. Gay people are fleeing. We’ve talked about asylum from America to Canada, but it’s actually easier right now if you’re gay in Russia. There’s proven danger there, so countries like Spain have opened their doors, and likely Malta as well. Canada is also receiving refugees.
More people are leaving as Putin ramps up enforcement against the LGBTQ community. Like so many deluded dictators, he seems to believe he can eliminate gay people. But every society has had them, and always will. The only thing he can do is force people underground. They’ll still exist.
The problem is, there’s no one to stop Russia. The UN denounces, human rights organizations condemn, but no country is willing to spend real political capital to punish regimes for persecuting LGBTQ people. So it’s a patchwork system. If you’re gay in Russia, you escape if you can. And that’s what’s happening—people are going to Spain, Malta, and Canada. Judges in some places are beginning to recognize the danger.
It’s astonishing that in 2025, we still see gay and lesbian refugees fleeing countries around the world.
Jacobsen: Thank you, Karel, for your time this gay week.
Bouley: What a week. The Charlie Kirk shooting has dominated everything. Type “LGBTQ” into Google right now—the first fifty stories are about Charlie Kirk and his stance on the gay community. That’s the biggest story for us this week.
There was even an editorial in LGBTQ Nation titled, “I Won’t Mourn Charlie Kirk.” Personally, I don’t think it benefits our community to dance on his grave so quickly, no matter how despicable he was.
I’ll end with this: When Ronald Reagan died, I was on KGO radio. The day he died, I played Ding Dong! The Witch Is Dead. I was reprimanded. It made national news. I ended up writing a letter of apology to Nancy Reagan, which she received. The reason I apologized was that when I saw her saying goodbye to Ron at the funeral, I saw the same look in her eyes that my mom had when she said goodbye to my dad.
I felt bad. Reagan wouldn’t say the word “AIDS” for seven years. He let my generation die. He laughed about it. So for me, the day he died, I was glad. I was in my forties at the time. I’m a little older now, and I realize there’s a place for that conversation—but not on the day he died. People can’t hear it that day.
And no one who likes Charlie Kirk, but might have an open mind about gay people, wants to see us revelling in his death on the very day he was killed. There’s space to critique his views about gay people, but I don’t think it serves our community to do that before he’s even buried—no matter how despicable he was.
There should be a buffer zone. I learned the hard way with my Ding Dong! The Witch Is Dead incident. My views on Charlie Kirk: I won’t miss him, but I’m not going to celebrate his death or revel in it. I mourn him as an American. Gay people should remember they are Americans first. An American was gunned down in public.
We shouldn’t be shooting anyone in public. Even Trump. When he was allegedly shot, I wasn’t happy. I say “allegedly” because his ear seemed to grow back, and cartilage doesn’t regenerate. But still, it’s the same principle. Privately, if you’re gay and you want to share your relief with friends, fine. But going on social media the day someone dies and rejoicing? That’s not a good look.
I hope people with level heads remember this: an American was shot and killed. Whether he “deserved it” or not is a conversation for later. Not now.
I hope my community rises above and waits until after the funeral to debate his positions. No one is going to change their mind in the heat of the moment. You’re not going to get a Charlie Kirk supporter to suddenly become sympathetic to gay issues by bragging about how happy you are he’s dead. That won’t happen.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/26
Dr. Leo Igwe is a Nigerian human rights advocate, scholar, and founder of the Advocacy for Alleged Witches (AfAW). With decades of activism, Igwe has dedicated his career to defending those falsely accused of witchcraft, combating superstition, and advancing secular human rights. He has partnered with international and national organizations to confront harmful practices rooted in fear and cultural beliefs, particularly targeting women, children, and people with disabilities. A vocal critic of religious extremism and media sensationalism, Igwe promotes critical thinking, education, and legal reform. His work stands at the intersection of grassroots advocacy, public enlightenment, and global humanism.
In this interview with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Igwe intensified campaigns across Nigeria in 2025 to defend victims of witchcraft accusations. Through unprecedented collaborations with organizations such as the International Federation of Women Lawyers, the National Human Rights Commission, and disability rights groups, AfAW has expanded its outreach to over 15 states. Initiatives include memorial events, legal interventions, media engagement, and direct support for victims. Despite cultural and religious resistance, Igwe emphasizes that witchcraft is a myth, urging communities to shift from fear-driven persecution to rights-based advocacy. His work highlights growing momentum, though challenges remain entrenched.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with the prolific activist, Dr. Leo Igwe of Nigeria, founder of the Advocacy for Alleged Witches (AfAW). Our primary focus is advocacy for people accused of witchcraft. A lot has happened this year, and we can dive into some specific events because I have notes. In your view, what have been the most significant achievements so far?
Dr. Leo Igwe: One of the most significant developments this year is that we have organized more meetings and awareness programs than in any previous year since 2020. Even as I speak with you, I am in Port Harcourt, in Rivers State, where we are organizing an awareness event—an event to remember victims of witch hunts and ritual attacks. It is the first of its kind in the country and in the history of our campaign: victims are being remembered rather than demonized.
These victims are not being pre-judged as guilty or condemned. There has also been considerable interest from groups wanting to partner with us. We have seen unprecedented requests and welcoming gestures from different organizations and civil society groups. For instance, the International Federation of Women Lawyers (FIDA)—several state chapters—has reached out to co-organize events. Historically, their focus has been on women and children, and accusations of witchcraft were not central; that is changing as AfAW’s work gains traction.
We have also engaged with the National Human Rights Commission of Nigeria (NHRC). Nigeria has 36 states and the Federal Capital Territory (Abuja), and some NHRC state offices are reaching out to co-organize events like the one we are holding on Saturday. They are ready to collaborate to highlight these abuses.
The Down Syndrome Foundation Nigeria has also contacted us to partner. They work on disability issues. Unfortunately, people with disabilities are often stigmatized or labelled as “possessed,” which leads to ostracism and harmful so-called “spiritual” interventions.
A recent example that drew national attention was a reported case in Calabar in February 2025, where a pastor allegedly killed his daughter, a child with Down syndrome, claiming she could transform into a snake. Cases like this show how superstition and stigma can turn deadly, and we are working with disability advocates to confront these beliefs and protect vulnerable families.
In terms of people who are accused, demonized, or stigmatized—whether because of disability or because of problems within the community—this has been a significant focus this year. We have now organized or collaborated in organizing events in over 15 states across Nigeria. By next week, we are planning an event in Niger State, in the north of the country. That will be the first event we have organized there, and we hope to use the opportunity to strengthen our partnerships with local groups and build a more robust mechanism for defending the accused.
That said, these collaborations do not come without challenges. For instance, in Niger State, we are partnering with women’s rights and children’s rights groups. They told us they would prefer not to have accused persons present, because their presence might trigger confrontation with accusers or with those who suspect them of being witches. This has been difficult, but we see it as a step toward educating people that everyone should stand as an advocate for the accused.
Many people still hold on to those beliefs and fears, even while showing some sympathy for the accused. However, sympathy is not enough. The accused are innocent. The law is on their side. So we want to find ways to reduce fear and anxiety and encourage communities to join us in openly and categorically supporting those accused of witchcraft.
Our meetings are not always characterized by unanimous support for advocacy on behalf of alleged witches. Sometimes, participants insist that witchcraft oppression is real. For example, at a recent meeting in Owerri, a pastor argued that witchcraft affliction must be addressed.
This is the contradiction we face. People say they oppose torture, killing, and persecution, but at the same time, they continue to insist witches exist. For us at AfAW, this is contradictory. If anyone claims people really are witches, then the burden is on them to prove it—to vindicate or exonerate those accused, rather than subject them to persecution.
Religion and culture also reinforce these challenges. Christianity, Islam, and Nollywood movies all perpetuate the belief that witchcraft and demonic possession are real. These institutions and cultural products continue to fuel the mindset that sustains witchcraft accusations.
In the churches and in the mosques, these harmful ideas are still being promoted. We are working to weaken the grip of these narratives on people’s minds and to chip away at what I call “witchcraft evangelism.” It does enormous damage and undermines our work. We also want people to recognize that Nollywood films and African movies are fiction, not fact.
The filmmakers reflect the myths and beliefs of society, but they are still telling stories, not recording reality. We want to help reorient society so that these movies are understood as cultural fiction. These are some of our successes, but also some of our challenges. Still, we see steady progress as more people begin to realize that something does not add up when it comes to witchcraft accusations. More groups are welcoming us and reaching out to cooperate, so that together we can address and dispel this phenomenon.
Jacobsen: Now, about specifics, in Owerri, Imo State, on September 2–3, we observed the International Day Against Witch Hunts. That was an event reaffirming material and psychosocial support. What was the big takeaway from that event this year?
Igwe: A lot. In Owerri, for the first time, we marched through the streets of the city, sharing flyers and speaking with people about the problem. We also visited the palace of the traditional ruler, Eze Clinton, who received us warmly and pledged his support to our campaign. That was an important milestone.
Another highlight was a presentation by our legal counsel, Mr. Okorie, on witchcraft accusations and the law. In Nigeria, accusing someone of witchcraft is a criminal offence. It is a form of criminal defamation, but most Nigerians are unaware of this—or if they are, they do not take it seriously, because their beliefs often outweigh what is written in the law. Mr. Okorie made it clear that even calling someone a witch can lead to prosecution. If this is done in a church or public gathering, the entire act is criminal.
He gave the example of a crusade organized in Imo State shortly after our event. The theme was “That Witch Must Die.” We reported it to the police, who summoned the pastor, but unfortunately did not prosecute him. Mr. Okorie explained to our participants that such gatherings are legally actionable, and anyone who participates in them could also be held liable. His legal perspective shocked many people, as they were unaware that the law was so clear on this matter.
We also had some victims from different communities share their experiences, which reinforced the urgency of our campaign.
We also heard from victims who recounted their stories and experiences. One woman in particular, Mrs. Regina, told us that after some people in her family died, she was forced to undergo a ritual. They bathed the corpse, washed the body, and gave her the water to drink as an “exoneration” ritual. She is one of the people we are supporting now, trying to provide her with all the necessary help to get back on her feet.
Another experience I had was visiting a street named after a victim of ritual killing, Ikechukwu Okoroho, who was murdered about 30 years ago. A street was named in his memory. I went to that street and to the scene where he was killed, according to reports. These are some of the key takeaways from the Owerri, Imo State event.
Jacobsen: There was also a case intervention in Ebonyi State on August 20, involving the banishment of Joseph Agwu from Unwuhu community. The case called on the state to prosecute the attackers, compensate the victim, and end the practice of banishment. Could you elaborate on that specific case?
Igwe: Yes, Joseph’s case is one of several in Ebonyi. He was accused of witchcraft and banished from his community. His property was destroyed, and he was forced to leave. We reached out to him, and he recounted his ordeal. We are appealing to the state authorities to step in and protect people like him.
Another successful intervention we made was in the case of Mr. Kingsley, who had also been accused. He was paraded through the streets, humiliated, and substances were poured over his body. When we got the information, we immediately contacted the police.
Thanks to that intervention, Kingsley is now back in his community. I met him recently, and he told me how happy and relieved he was. People now look at him with respect rather than the scorn he used to face. This was a real success story.
Of course, not all cases succeed. Sometimes incidents happen in rural communities where it is difficult for us to intervene. Accessing those areas can be dangerous—there are threats of beatings, mob attacks, or even killings. People in those communities often suspect that anyone investigating is there to help the police prosecute them. So yes, we have had some successes, but the challenges remain significant.
Jacobsen: There were also several roundtables. For example, in Ekiti State from August 19 to 21, there was a stakeholder roundtable aligned with the World Day Against Witch Hunts. There were also NHRC partnerships in Kano, Okoro, Ondo, and Yola, Adamawa. Across the year, there were several such meetings—on January 21, March 6, July 21, and August 19–21. What is the role of these roundtables, and what were the key takeaways from each?
Igwe: For the one we held in Yola early in the year, the big takeaway was that too often, when these cases are reported, nothing is done. They appear in the news and then disappear. Victims receive no help or support.
Since 2020, AfAW has been a game-changer. We step in on the side of the accused to support and empower them. In Yola, our message was clear: there is now an organization that stands for the accused. We introduced ourselves, explained what we do, and intervened in a specific case where a parent and his partner tortured a girl to death. The mother had been accused of witchcraft, and the children were said to have “inherited” it from her. The girl was tortured and died. We have been working hard to support the mother and her three surviving children, and to push for justice.
That was our first meeting in Yola, and like with many of these events, participants told us nobody else was doing what we are doing. We know why—few people have the conviction and understanding that we at AfAW bring. However, we made it clear there is now a place where the accused can seek support, and an organization keeping watch on these cases. That was our takeaway from Yola.
In Ondo, we also held an event and combined it with a radio program. A woman named Olaemi Ijogun attended after hearing us on the radio. She told us how she had been accused as a child and beaten. Her case was heartbreaking. She said that both she and her sister had been accused of being initiated into a coven when they were very young.
In Olaemi’s case, the accusations came from a relative who claimed to have seen her and her sister in a dream. The parents were told the girls were going to covens at night. As a result, they were not allowed to sleep. They were forced to kneel and raise their hands through the night because the parents believed that if they slept, they would travel spiritually to the coven. The girls were denied sleep for several nights.
The stigma followed Olaemi to school, where it negatively impacted her social life. She still breaks down when recounting the trauma, which she did at our event. She called on people to stop making accusations because they leave an indelible mark on the minds and psyches of children. Since then, she has been working with us to advocate against witchcraft accusations.
For instance, she joined us in Ekiti State during the World Day Against Witch Hunts event. There, we encountered a case where a 10-year-old girl accused her grandmother of initiating her into a coven and of spiritually murdering people. This accusation was made on the radio after a station invited the family to speak. As a result, the grandmother’s business collapsed, and she was ostracized; the community avoided her. We intervened to reassure her that she had no hand in such things.
The background is that the family’s youngest child, about two years old, had been sick since birth. The grandmother was blamed for the illness. When I interviewed the mother of the 10-year-old, she even told me that the grandmother had “taken away the intelligence” of the children, causing them to do poorly in school, and was also responsible for the family’s financial struggles. In other words, they blamed the grandmother for virtually every problem.
To address this, we provided the family with money to conduct a medical test on the child, so we can determine the real medical problem and treat it appropriately. This shows that we are not only holding events, but also taking practical steps to intervene. We extend solidarity by combining advocacy with direct support. We are helping the grandmother, the victim of the accusation, while also ensuring that the sick child receives medical treatment. These are some of the key outcomes from the Ekiti State event.
Jacobsen: How did the World Day Against Witch Hunts itself go?
Igwe: It was observed on August 10. That year it fell on a Sunday. In Nigeria, the best thing you can do on a Sunday is either go to church or stay at home. Suppose you organize anything else on that day. In that case, it is not likely to attract much participation—except for the few atheists and humanists in the country.
On August 10, the World Day Against Witch Hunts, I attended a church where the pastor regularly preaches against witch hunting. In our work, we identify religious leaders who speak out against these practices. It is not easy, of course, but we make every effort to find such churches. I was told about this one, contacted the pastor, and he confirmed that he preaches against witch hunting. So I went there to listen to his sermon. We also recorded it so that we could use it later to show other churches that this kind of preaching is possible and necessary.
It was a small church, with maybe 50 participants—tiny compared to the massive congregations you see in Nigeria, where tens or even hundreds of thousands gather. That probably explains why this church holds what you might call a minority position in the religious landscape. Still, that was where I spent the day.
Before and after August 10, we have continued organizing events in various states to remember victims of witch hunts and ritual attacks. It has gone well. People are coming out and saying, “At last, there is a space where we can feel vindicated, where we can share our stories in front of an audience that supports us, rather than seeing us as guilty.” That has been the spirit of these gatherings. In fact, we could not accommodate all the events in August, which is why some of them were pushed into September. For us at AfAW, the World Day Against Witch Hunts has not really ended. Our event this Saturday will conclude this year’s cycle of activities tied to that observance.
Jacobsen: Let us turn to the media side of things—ongoing public education, advocacy, op-eds, and briefings. Which news and opinion publications have been most effective in disseminating information about this campaign, the organization, and the harm caused by these superstitions?
Igwe: We have had coverage of our activities in several online and mainstream media outlets. Some journalists have even drawn our attention to cases in which we later intervened. Among Nigerian media organizations, I must mention Sahara Reporters, ThisDay, and The Eagle Online, which have been supportive.
We have also had coverage in other outlets, such as the Nigerian Tribune, Punch, and The Sun. Some of these online and print organizations have tried to highlight the work we are doing.
However, let me be clear—before now, media agencies have overwhelmingly been part of the problem. Their reporting on witchcraft accusations often reinforces the very narratives we are trying to dismantle. This is something I consistently point out to them during media interactions.
Many journalists still report accusations in sensational ways. They tell me the more spectacular, the better—for clicks and traffic. They call it “clickbait.” So, you see headlines like “Witch Crash-Lands” or “Bird-Woman Found in Village.” It is absolute nonsense, but it generates attention. Moreover, in their pursuit of attention, they misinform the public, mislead communities, and do real harm.
These reports are unprofessional and unethical. Journalism should be about reporting facts, and it should be balanced. Instead, in their quest for traffic, media houses end up endangering lives. For example, there was a radio program where a child accused her grandmother of initiating her into witchcraft. We intervened, and when we left, the station manager admitted to me, “Leo, it was this radio program that caused the problem.” He realized it had put an innocent woman in danger and destroyed her socially.
So yes, the media have been part of the problem. However, with the kind of engagement we are doing at the Advocacy for Alleged Witches (AfAW), some outlets are beginning to rethink. Some are realigning and realizing just how unprofessional and unethical their reporting has been. They are slowly starting to highlight our perspective. However, we still have a long way to go. Nigerian media organizations still thrive on sensationalism.
The media still thrives on sensational headlines—stories designed to attract attention and appeal to primitive superstitions that people find exciting. Slowly and steadily, some outlets are beginning to support what we are doing. However, there is still a tremendous amount of work ahead.
Another challenge is this: while media agencies are quick to publish sensational, false, and misleading reports about witchcraft—often for free—when we want to put forward our perspective, they demand large sums of money. Both online and broadcast outlets do this.
For example, if we want to appear on television, they charge between $500 and $1,000 just for the appearance. Additionally, you may need to travel, pay for flights, and cover accommodation costs. This makes enlightenment and advocacy extremely expensive, even though it is precisely what the country needs to counter these harmful narratives.
Jacobsen: Do you have any final points on that last topic?
Igwe: Yes, while a few media organizations are beginning to report witchcraft accusations more responsibly—rather than treating witchcraft itself as a fact or as a “certified” part of African culture—the progress is limited. Some outlets are starting to understand AfAW’s position and provide more balance. However, we are still far from the cultural shift we need. That kind of change will not happen through one report or even one event. It requires intensive public education and sustained enlightenment.
Unfortunately, in this area, many media stations have not been supportive. They are quick to publish sensational stories, like “an elderly woman turned into a bird” or “a witch crash-landed on her way to a meeting,” as was recently reported in Delta State. These kinds of stories get free publicity.
However, when AfAW attempts to purchase airtime to educate the public, we encounter significant costs. Media outlets charge us considerable amounts of money, making enlightenment campaigns very expensive. The imbalance is stark: free space for superstition, but costly barriers for rational education.
Meanwhile, churches and religious organizations that actively promote witchcraft narratives are given abundant airtime. They advertise events with themes like “That Witch Must Die” or “Exposing the Mysteries of Witchcraft.” These programs receive free promotion, which reinforces harmful beliefs.
By contrast, when we present our position—saying plainly that witchcraft is a myth—we are given little space, asked to pay heavily, and sometimes even put under pressure during media interviews. The pressure is on us to “prove” that something imaginary does not exist, instead of challenging those who claim it does.
The media landscape is still heavily skewed toward reinforcing witchcraft beliefs. We have not yet reached the paradigm shift where media establishments themselves start questioning and dismantling these narratives. That remains the challenge before us.
The cultural shift we need will only come when the media itself transforms. Until then, they will not welcome our programs in the way they should. Even when we pay for airtime, they often schedule us in the middle of the day, when people are busy at work. They refuse to give us prime slots in the evening or late at night—times when churches preach about witchcraft to audiences at home around the dinner table.
Without media on our side, we cannot fully succeed in making witch-hunting history in this region. That is why this work is so critical.
Jacobsen: There was a memorial action on August 29, connected to victims of ritual killings. You visited a hotel site linked to one of those incidents, to connect memory with today’s anti–witch hunt work. Could you explain what happened at that hotel, and how many victims are we talking about?
Igwe: I visited because of the incident that happened there in September 1996, almost 29 years ago. What happened then is still happening today. For example, earlier this year, in February 2025, in Lagos, a young man murdered his girlfriend, used an axe to break her head, and drained her blood into a calabash, supposedly for rituals. That case mirrors what happened at the Otokoto Hotel in 1996.
At Otokoto, the victim was an 11-year-old boy who sold peanuts on the streets. A hotel gardener lured him inside, gave him a drugged drink, and when the boy became unconscious, he cut off his head. The man was apprehended while attempting to deliver the head to someone who had ordered it for ritual purposes.
The news caused a massive uproar. There were riots in the city, and people began burning the houses of those suspected of being involved.
The people labelled as “ritualists,” in other words, those involved in ritual syndicates or racketeering, were the focus of that uproar. My visit to the Otokoto Hotel aimed to remind the people of Imo State that this practice has been ongoing for far too long and must come to an end.
The government seized the hotel property, and today it is used by the police. Not far from the police station, there is a street named after the young boy who was murdered. Those responsible were eventually arrested, and some received life imprisonment while others were sentenced to death.
I visited that property to show that the same problem we saw nearly three decades ago is still with us today—only in new forms. Now, people kill their girlfriends, relatives, or acquaintances for what they call organ harvesting. They believe specific organs can be used in rituals to produce wealth, success, or power.
The narratives of religion, miracles, magic, and supernatural intervention fuel these beliefs. All of them reinforce the idea that ritual killings can deliver prosperity. What we are confronting is a Herculean task—a complex, many-headed monster of superstition and fear. Only the flame of reason, compassion, critical thinking, and skeptical inquiry can provide hope for society and for the victims.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Leo.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/25
Bruce Schneier is an internationally renowned security technologist and the New York Times bestselling author of fourteen books, including Data and Goliath and A Hacker’s Mind. He is a Lecturer at the Harvard Kennedy School, a board member of EFF, and Chief of Security Architecture at Inrupt, Inc. Find him on X (@schneierblog, 142.2k) and his blog (schneier.com, 250k).
Nathan E. Sanders is a data scientist focused on making policymaking more participatory. His research spans machine learning, astrophysics, public health, environmental justice, and more. He has served in fellowships and the Massachusetts legislature and the Berkman-Klein Center at Harvard University. You can find his writing on AI and democracy in publications like The New York Times and The Atlantic and at his website, nsanders.me.
Rewiring Democracy: How AI Will Transform Our Politics, Government, and Citizenship is Bruce Schneier and Nathan E. Sanders’ field guide to governing in the algorithmic age. Drawing on real projects and policy debates, it maps how AI is already reshaping lawmaking, regulation, courts, and civic participation—and shows how to bend the tech toward equity, transparency, and public accountability. Rather than dystopian panic or hype, the authors offer a pragmatic roadmap: reform and regulate AI, resist harmful deployments, responsibly use AI to improve services, and renovate democratic institutions so power is distributed, not concentrated. Publication: MIT Press, October 21, 2025, globally.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: You argue AI magnifies power. Which concrete policy levers best ensure diffusion?
Nathan E. Sanders: AI is fundamentally a power magnifying technology, It takes the command of one person and executes on it with greater speed, scale, scope, and sophistication that any one human could wield on their own. Both powerful and, relatively speaking, powerless people can benefit from this.
But recognize that the powerful have many advantages to help them get the most magnification. Diffusion is harder. Here in Massachusetts, many of my colleagues are experimenting with using AI to help groups reach consensus, for example to agree on policy proposals. In this example, people get to use AI to help express themselves. In the United Arab Emirates, the ruler of Dubai has promised to use AI to create a “comprehensive legislative plan” spanning local and federal law and updated more frequently than traditional lawmaking. In this example, a powerful person gets to use AI to dictate the rules of a society. No matter how good the next version of ChatGPT may be, I can’t use it to do that.
Jacobsen: What happens if concentration happens across citizens and institutions?
Bruce Schneier: We already know the answer, because we’ve seen it happen: in big tech in general and with social media in particular. The powerful get more powerful, and then use that power to enact legislative changes that further protect that power.
The concentration of wealth and power is bigger than AI, of course. It’s bigger than technology. But it’s exacerbated by technologies like AI. Our task as a democracy is to ensure that technologies broadly distribute power amongst the many rather than concentrate it among the few.
We return to this problem again and again in our book. We outline myriad ways that AI today is concentrating power. We lay out a four-part plan of action: resist inappropriate uses of AI, seek our responsible uses of AI in governance, reform the ecosystem of AI, and renovate our democracy to prepare it for AI. The last one feels most urgent right now. We need to make systemic changes to our system—most of which will not be specific to AI—that are responsive to the impending risks the new technology brings.
Jacobsen: How should legislatures draft AI-era statutes?
Sanders: For Congress, a good start would be to finally pass comprehensive data privacy legislation. AI is providing many tech companies with new capabilities and incentives to abuse consumer trust and monetize surveillance of their behaviors, habits, and interests. The best AI assistants will be the ones that know the most about their users, but their operators will also pose the greatest risks to consumer privacy. Other jurisdictions, like Europe, have effectively made a wide range of exploitative business models infeasible by giving consumers rights to withhold consent, delete their data, and more.
In Rewiring Democracy, we also think about how the capabilities of AI will change the lawmaking process and law itself. Optimistically, AI can give legislators with limited resources help in drafting bills with fewer strings attached than, say, a lobbyist or an advocacy organization’s model legislation. The first law anywhere known to have been written by AI arose from Porto Alegre, Brazil, when a city councillor simply needed some help writing a bill about water utility infrastructure and turned to ChatGPT.
In the future, legislators might choose not just to use an AI model to draft the text of a bill, but might actually choose to designate an AI model as the form of their legislation. Traditional, textual legislation suffers from ambiguity and inflexibility when it is interpreted decades later. An AI model could clarify its intent with unlimited precision and express an interpretation of a rule in response to any future special case or scenario.
Jacobsen: What might ossify law or chill innovation?
Schneier: Be careful with the phrase “chill innovation.” It’s a scary pair of words that the powerful use to shut down any talk of regulation. Do health codes chill innovation in restaurants? They don’t, and in any case maybe we don’t want restaurants whose practices make people sick.
AI is a technology that has implications throughout society. It will affect how we interact with each other. It will affect employment and the nature of labor. It will affect national security and the global economy. It will, as we talk about extensively in our book, affect democracy.
Letting a technology develop without any regulation only makes sense when the cost of getting it wrong is small. When the cost of getting it wrong will kill someone–think automobiles, or airplanes, or food service–we tend to regulate. Computers have long been in the former category; it was okay to let companies experiment unfettered because it didn’t really matter. Now, AIs are driving cars, transcribing doctor’s notes, and making life and death decisions about people’s insurance benefits.
Smart regulation doesn’t chill innovation. It actually incents innovation by defining pro-social requirements that companies have to meet. If we want AI to be unbiased, or secure, or safe enough for high-risk applications, we need to create those regulatory requirements that the market can innovate to meet.
Jacobsen: What would a “public AI” look like in practice? Things like auditing, ownership, procurement standards, and training data governance?
Sanders: We call for the development of Public AI as an alternative to the current, corporate-dominated ecosystem of AI today. Corporate AI is built to serve one interest: short-term profit. That means it will always operate from a trust deficit, where the informed consumer knows that any AI model they use is ultimately built to serve someone else, not them. A public AI model—one built by a government agency, as a public good, under public control, with public oversight—would be subject to fundamentally different incentives. It could be optimized not to turn a profit, but to win public approval.
There are many visions for how to realize public AI. Indeed, several countries, including Singapore and Switzerland, have published fully open source (in data, code, and model weights) AI models built by their governments.
Our preferred version of Public AI is a public option model. Think of it like the public option for healthcare. It doesn’t replace or invalidate the work of private companies to build AI models, or offer health insurance. Instead, it offers a competitive baseline: a minimum standard that private AI provider, or insurers, need to meet or exceed to be successful. We would not be looking to government to be the leader of the pack on innovation and performance. The public option could instead set a higher bar on other factors: being responsive to consumer input and feedback, engendering trust by disclosing its training data sources and procedures, and guaranteeing long term and universal access at a reasonable price.
Jacobsen: How do we harness AI for research and drafting while preventing bias and confidentiality breaches?
Schneier: Let’s start with bias. First, it’s not clear that an unbiased AI is even possible, just as an unbiased human isn’t possible. And second, there are some biases we might want: a bias for fairness, or kindness, or honesty. The flip side of a bias is a value. We all want AIs to have values, even though we are never going to agree on which values we want AIs to have.
We envision a world be populated with multiple AIs with different biases and values, and that people will choose. If you are a judge who is using AI to help write opinions, or a candidate who is using AI to help write speeches, you will choose an AI that has the same biases and values as you do–just as you would choose human assistants who mirror your biases and values. In those instances, a biased AI is a feature, at least to that user.
In situations where AI is being used as a neutral party–adjudicating a dispute, determining eligibility for a government service–we’re going to want to remove illegal biases and implant societal values. That’s technically hard, and many researchers and developers are trying to solve those problems right now.
Security is even harder. AIs are computer programs running on networked computers, and we cannot absolutely prevent confidentiality breaches. Additionally, there are all the security problems inherent in modern machine-learning AI systems. And aside from confidentiality, we’re worried about integrity: has the AI system been manipulated in any way, and can you trust its output? Right now we can’t.
We don’t know how to solve AI security with current technology. Any AI that is working in an adversarial environment—and by this I mean that it may encounter untrusted training data or input—is vulnerable to prompt injection attacks. It’s an existential problem that, near as we can tell, most people developing these technologies are just pretending isn’t there.
Jacobsen: Where is the ethical line between personalized civic education and manipulative micro-targeting in campaigns?
Sanders: This line was always blurry, for better and for worse. Generations ago, politicians went on whistlestop tours through communities, stopping long enough to speak from the back of a train car before moving on in an attempt to get face to face with as many voters as possible. Some technologies made campaigning and even less personal—radio and TV required candidates to broadcast the same message to everyone. Now, AI makes it possible to deliver individualized messages to every voter and to answer any questions they pose in personalized detail, any time of day.
Agentic AI frameworks make it possible to abstract the voter, too, from this conversation. In the near future, my AI assistant might reach out to every candidate’s AI to ask a series of questions and then tell me how it thinks I should vote.
We generally see these kinds of assistive capabilities as positive. They increase the information bandwidth of our democratic information systems. They make it easier for me to learn about how my views line up with the options on the ballot, and make it easier for candidates to hear from thousands or millions of voters.
But there are real risks, too. If we outsource our individual decision making to an AI proxy, there is a slippery slope to outsourcing democracy itself to the machines. And if we trust a candidate’s avatar to represent their policy positions, we give candidates yet more plausible deniability for their statement and yet another vector for demagoging.
Jacobsen: Internationally, what cooperative norms will halt AI-fuelled “authoritarian tech stack” from exporting illiberalism?
Schneier: We’re not going to solve this with norms. The problem with relying on things people voluntarily agree to is that not everyone will agree to them. Right now, there’s too much profit–both economic and political–to be made from violating any norm we might suggest. It’s a race to the bottom, as both corporations and countries use AI technology for their own advantage. This is why in our book, we constantly return to either things people can do on their own, and things people can do collectively through government.
Like any technology, AI isn’t inherently good or bad. Like every technology, people can use it to good and bad ends. We can use AI to make democracy more effective and responsive to the people, or we can use it to foster authoritarianism. That’s our choice. We cannot steer how technology works–that’s a matter of science and engineering–but we can steer how we implement and deploy it. That was really our goal in Rewiring Democracy.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/25
Steven Fisher is a futurist, innovation leader, and design strategist with 30+ years of experience guiding organizations through transformational change. He co-founded McKinsey’s Futures Practice, integrating foresight and speculative design, and pioneered Generative AI adoption at FTI Consulting. As Managing Partner of Revolution Factory and Chief Futurist at the Human Frontier Institute, he drives innovation through AI, foresight, and design thinking. Co-author of The Startup Equation (McGraw Hill, 2016), he is developing SuperShifts (2025) and Designing the Future (2026). A thought leader, speaker, and podcaster, Fisher helps organizations anticipate challenges and embrace future opportunities.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What are the underlying drivers behind significant workforce restructuring in major tech companies, even amidst strong financial performance?
Steven Fisher: The restructuring we’re seeing is not a reflection of crisis. It’s a recalibration for a new era. Even financially strong companies like Microsoft are restructuring because the ground beneath them is shifting. We’re entering what I call the Age of Intelligence, where emerging technologies, changing consumer expectations, and new forms of value creation are redefining what organizations need from their workforce. In many cases, companies are streamlining traditional roles to reinvest in strategic capabilities such as AI, cybersecurity, and platform infrastructure. This is not just cost-cutting. It’s a rebalancing act, trading legacy operational scale for adaptive intelligence and speed.
Jacobsen: What role does Artificial Intelligence play in influencing workforce adjustments and future skill demands?
Fisher: AI is not just influencing the workforce; it’s transforming the DNA of how organizations operate. As AI moves from automation to augmentation, the skills that matter most are also shifting. Technical proficiency is still essential, but equally important are adaptability, systems thinking, and the ability to collaborate with AI as a cognitive partner. This is part of what we call the IntelliFusion SuperShift, where human and artificial intelligence blend into new roles, workflows, and decision-making models. Many of the roles being restructured today are ones that AI can now handle more efficiently. But new roles are also emerging, especially at the intersection of AI, ethics, foresight, and experience design.
Jacobsen: What strategies can organizations adopt to maintain agility and restructure effectively in a dynamic tech environment?
Fisher: The key is to shift from static planning to dynamic foresight. Organizations need a living workforce strategy, one that evolves in tandem with technology and market changes. That starts with scenario planning, skills mapping, and what we call “future-fit” organizational design. Agile organizations invest in cross-functional talent, fluid team structures, and continuous upskilling. They create internal ecosystems where people can rotate, experiment, and grow. Perhaps most importantly, they center strategy around people, not just platforms. AI may drive efficiency, but human adaptability drives long-term resilience.
Jacobsen: What are the broader implications of these shifts for the job market, including changing tech roles and career paths?
Fisher: The tech job market is simultaneously fragmenting and reforming. Traditional tech roles, such as full-stack developers or IT administrators, are being reshaped by AI tooling and no-code platforms. At the same time, entirely new roles are emerging in areas like prompt engineering, algorithmic accountability, and AI-human interface design. We’re moving from siloed careers to modular ones. The new career path is not a ladder, it’s a lattice. People will need to build dynamic portfolios that showcase their skills, projects, and collaborations. In the Age of Intelligence, your value won’t be defined by your job title, but by your capacity to adapt, learn, and synthesize across domains.
Jacobsen: What advice do you have for employees navigating industry transformation and potential job displacement?
Fisher: The most powerful thing you can do is adopt a future-ready mindset. Focus less on protecting your current role and more on expanding your future potential. Start scanning the horizon for weak signals. Where is the industry heading? What emerging skills are becoming more valuable? Upskill intentionally, not reactively. Lean into creativity, strategic thinking, emotional intelligence, and systems literacy, areas where human strength will remain essential, even in an AI-augmented world. And remember, you are not just a worker inside a system. You are a designer of your own future. The most resilient people I’ve seen treat disruption not as a threat, but as an invitation to evolve.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Steven.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/24
In conversation with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, CAIR-LA’s Legal Director Amr Shabaik highlights the rise of hate crimes across Los Angeles, with CAIR-LA’s internal reports far exceeding state figures due to chronic underreporting. El-Kadi emphasizes collaboration with Jewish and interfaith partners, underscoring solidarity against antisemitism, Islamophobia, and broader intolerance. She advises victims to document and report incidents to both law enforcement and advocacy organizations, while urging city officials and prosecutors to prioritize anti-hate initiatives. Programs like ICUJP and CLUE offer vital community support and training.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What specific updates, if any, have you received from the LAPD regarding this incident of the neo-Nazis?
Amr Shabaik: We have not received updates from the LAPD regarding this incident.
Jacobsen: Any indications that the recent antisemitic graffiti incidents in Encino are connected?
Shabaik: We are not aware of any evidence or confirmation that the other antisemitic incidents in Encino have any connection to the graffiti targeting Mitzvahland.
Jacobsen: How is CAIR-LA supporting the targeted business?
Shabaik: CAIR-LA has not been in direct communication or contact with the business. However, it is imperative that we call out acts of hate whether it targets Muslims, Palestinians, Jews, or anyone else, because silence normalizes intolerance. When a Jewish store is defaced with Nazi symbols, it is an attack on our shared sense of community and humanity. Our organization is dedicated to fighting hate and intolerance in all its forms.
Jacobsen: What about engaging with local Jewish community leaders?
Shabaik: Our work necessitates that we collaborate with a diverse group of partners and organizations on a variety of issues who align on calling out and addressing hate wherever it occurs. Whether that is working with Jewish community leaders to address and stop the ongoing genocide in Gaza or working with interfaith partners to address the increasing attacks on immigrant communities, CAIR-LA works closely with a diverse set of interfaith and community-based organizations.
Jacobsen: What steps are recommended for residents and businesses to report hate incidents?
Shabaik: When an individual or business experiences a hate crime or hate incident, it’s critical to safely and thoroughly document the situation and report it immediately.
Before filing a report, individuals should take photos and videos, if it is safe to do so, and make a note of what happened, including the date, time, location, and any individuals involved.
In addition to reporting to law enforcement, they should contact local organizations, such as CAIR-LA, that respond to hate crimes and provide advocacy and legal services. Even if legal action is not necessary, reporting all hate crimes and incidents helps organizations like CAIR-LA build an accurate picture of the harm communities are facing, which in turn allows us to better advocate for their needs and provide urgently needed services.
To report an incident to CAIR-LA, contact CAIR-LA’s Civil Rights Department at (714) 776-1177 (ext. 2) or submit an intake form at ca.cair.com/losangeles/report-hate-discrimination
Jacobsen: What actions from city officials and prosecutors ensure accountability?
Shabaik: City and county officials must ensure adequate commitment and funding for anti-hate work, victim resources, and adequate city and county reporting mechanisms. City and county officials must also publicly condemn and address incidents of hate. Prosecutors must ensure resources are dedicated to addressing and prosecuting hate and ensuring that victims receive adequate support. Unfortunately, we have received many intakes from victims of hate who felt that either law enforcement or the prosecutor’s office did not take their concerns seriously or provide adequate follow up or resources to them.
Jacobsen: Is there a trend in hate incidents in Greater Los Angeles?
Shabaik: Hate crimes and hate incidents are on the rise throughout the Greater Los Angeles area and nationwide. CAIR-LA has seen an alarming increase in targeted violence, intimidation, doxing, and employment retaliation against Muslim and Arab communities—especially those speaking in support of Palestinian human rights.
The California Attorney General’s office recently released its annual report compiling hate crimes reported to law enforcement agencies, revealing that overall hate crime events in California rose by 2.7% from 2023 to 2024. CAIR-LA’s internal reporting shows a much higher increase in hate crimes and hate incidents reported to us from the community over the past several years. In 2022, our office received approximately 19 such reports, in 2023 we received 92 such reports, and in 2024 we received 109 such reports.
The discrepancy between the lower percentage reported by the AG’s office of hate crimes and our own numbers is due to the fact that hate is chronically underreported, especially among Muslim and immigrant communities—meaning the number of hate incidents and crimes is likely much higher than what is released in official reports. Systemic gaps in data collection, cultural stigma, concerns about immigration status, distrust of law enforcement, and fear of retaliation significantly contribute to the large gap between what communities are experiencing and the data released by law enforcement.
Jacobsen: What interfaith or community programs does CAIR-LA recommend?
Shabaik:
Jacobsen: What about engaging with local Jewish community leaders?
Shabaik: Our work necessitates that we collaborate with a diverse group of partners and organizations on a variety of issues who align on calling out and addressing hate wherever it occurs. Whether that is working with Jewish community leaders to address and stop the ongoing genocide in Gaza or working with interfaith partners to address the increasing attacks on immigrant communities, CAIR-LA works closely with a diverse set of interfaith and community-based organizations.
Jacobsen: What steps are recommended for residents and businesses to report hate incidents?
Shabaik: When an individual or business experiences a hate crime or hate incident, it’s critical to safely and thoroughly document the situation and report it immediately.
Before filing a report, individuals should take photos and videos, if it is safe to do so, and make a note of what happened, including the date, time, location, and any individuals involved.
In addition to reporting to law enforcement, they should contact local organizations, such as CAIR-LA, that respond to hate crimes and provide advocacy and legal services. Even if legal action is not necessary, reporting all hate crimes and incidents helps organizations like CAIR-LA build an accurate picture of the harm communities are facing, which in turn allows us to better advocate for their needs and provide urgently needed services.
To report an incident to CAIR-LA, contact CAIR-LA’s Civil Rights Department at (714) 776-1177 (ext. 2) or submit an intake form at ca.cair.com/losangeles/report-hate-discrimination
Jacobsen: What actions from city officials and prosecutors ensure accountability?
Shabaik: City and county officials must ensure adequate commitment and funding for anti-hate work, victim resources, and adequate city and county reporting mechanisms. City and county officials must also publicly condemn and address incidents of hate. Prosecutors must ensure resources are dedicated to addressing and prosecuting hate and ensuring that victims receive adequate support. Unfortunately, we have received many intakes from victims of hate who felt that either law enforcement or the prosecutor’s office did not take their concerns seriously or provide adequate follow up or resources to them.
Jacobsen: Is there a trend in hate incidents in Greater Los Angeles?
Shabaik: Hate crimes and hate incidents are on the rise throughout the Greater Los Angeles area and nationwide. CAIR-LA has seen an alarming increase in targeted violence, intimidation, doxing, and employment retaliation against Muslim and Arab communities—especially those speaking in support of Palestinian human rights.
The California Attorney General’s office recently released its annual report compiling hate crimes reported to law enforcement agencies, revealing that overall hate crime events in California rose by 2.7% from 2023 to 2024. CAIR-LA’s internal reporting shows a much higher increase in hate crimes and hate incidents reported to us from the community over the past several years. In 2022, our office received approximately 19 such reports, in 2023 we received 92 such reports, and in 2024 we received 109 such reports.
The discrepancy between the lower percentage reported by the AG’s office of hate crimes and our own numbers is due to the fact that hate is chronically underreported, especially among Muslim and immigrant communities—meaning the number of hate incidents and crimes is likely much higher than what is released in official reports. Systemic gaps in data collection, cultural stigma, concerns about immigration status, distrust of law enforcement, and fear of retaliation significantly contribute to the large gap between what communities are experiencing and the data released by law enforcement.
Jacobsen: What interfaith or community programs does CAIR-LA recommend? What about engaging with local Jewish community leaders?
Shabaik: Our work necessitates that we collaborate with a diverse group of partners and organizations on a variety of issues who align on calling out and addressing hate wherever it occurs. Whether that is working with Jewish community leaders to address and stop the ongoing genocide in Gaza or working with interfaith partners to address the increasing attacks on immigrant communities, CAIR-LA works closely with a diverse set of interfaith and community-based organizations.
Jacobsen: What steps are recommended for residents and businesses to report hate incidents?
Shabaik: When an individual or business experiences a hate crime or hate incident, it’s critical to safely and thoroughly document the situation and report it immediately.
Before filing a report, individuals should take photos and videos, if it is safe to do so, and make a note of what happened, including the date, time, location, and any individuals involved.
In addition to reporting to law enforcement, they should contact local organizations, such as CAIR-LA, that respond to hate crimes and provide advocacy and legal services. Even if legal action is not necessary, reporting all hate crimes and incidents helps organizations like CAIR-LA build an accurate picture of the harm communities are facing, which in turn allows us to better advocate for their needs and provide urgently needed services.
To report an incident to CAIR-LA, contact CAIR-LA’s Civil Rights Department at (714) 776-1177 (ext. 2) or submit an intake form at ca.cair.com/losangeles/report-hate-discrimination
Jacobsen: What actions from city officials and prosecutors ensure accountability?
Shabaik: City and county officials must ensure adequate commitment and funding for anti-hate work, victim resources, and adequate city and county reporting mechanisms. City and county officials must also publicly condemn and address incidents of hate. Prosecutors must ensure resources are dedicated to addressing and prosecuting hate and ensuring that victims receive adequate support. Unfortunately, we have received many intakes from victims of hate who felt that either law enforcement or the prosecutor’s office did not take their concerns seriously or provide adequate follow up or resources to them.
Jacobsen: Is there a trend in hate incidents in Greater Los Angeles?
Shabaik: Hate crimes and hate incidents are on the rise throughout the Greater Los Angeles area and nationwide. CAIR-LA has seen an alarming increase in targeted violence, intimidation, doxing, and employment retaliation against Muslim and Arab communities—especially those speaking in support of Palestinian human rights.
The California Attorney General’s office recently released its annual report compiling hate crimes reported to law enforcement agencies, revealing that overall hate crime events in California rose by 2.7% from 2023 to 2024. CAIR-LA’s internal reporting shows a much higher increase in hate crimes and hate incidents reported to us from the community over the past several years. In 2022, our office received approximately 19 such reports, in 2023 we received 92 such reports, and in 2024 we received 109 such reports.
The discrepancy between the lower percentage reported by the AG’s office of hate crimes and our own numbers is due to the fact that hate is chronically underreported, especially among Muslim and immigrant communities—meaning the number of hate incidents and crimes is likely much higher than what is released in official reports. Systemic gaps in data collection, cultural stigma, concerns about immigration status, distrust of law enforcement, and fear of retaliation significantly contribute to the large gap between what communities are experiencing and the data released by law enforcement.
Jacobsen: What interfaith or community programs does CAIR-LA recommend?
Shabaik: We suggest connecting with Interfaith Communities United for Justice and Peace (ICUJP), which provides regular interfaith forums and dialogue on justice and peace. We also work closely with Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice (CLUE), which educates, organizes, and mobilizes faith leaders and community members to accompany workers in their struggle for good jobs, dignity, and justice. In general, we recommend attending bystander intervention training, such as those offered by LA vs. Hate, to learn how to respond safely and effectively to hate incidents.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Amr.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/23
Of what, is this a symptom?
No race riots.
No civilizational collapse.
Therefore, it’s a superminority appeal.
Is it the “radical left”?
Nope.
Otherwise, it would be nationwide, as per Left versus Right.
It’s conservative versus far-Right.
Centrists and Leftwing are the commentariat in this murder.
Conservatives and far-Right brought their internal ‘spiritual’ battle to reality somewhere between a neck and a throat: Groper v. Groypers.
Repeat: Will this continue to be the nation of the blind?
God did not answer the prayers for mercy, ask Frank Turek.
Indeed, if murder was the answer, what was the question?
One more wishing to be alike in Christ;
someone who has done exactly as Christ has done, too:
Kirk stayed dead.
Does this get a Rise out of you, too?
A Knight for Christ, finding eternal night.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/23
Michael Ashley Schulman, CFA, Chief Investment Officer of Running Point Capital Advisors, offers expert insight into current global financial dynamics. Schulman offers timely insights into macroeconomic trends, U.S. fiscal policy, and the global tech landscape.
In this interview with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Schulman outlines near-, medium-, and long-term effects of the U.S. ending the de minimis import exemption. Short term, inflation blips are muted as impulse buys fall; by the holidays, core goods may rise ~0.1–0.2% before fading by spring. Compliance and fulfillment costs jump as postal flows snarl (~80% drop), pushing sellers toward warehousing, express, and bonded lanes; documentation becomes a moat. India faces tariff pain in textiles, gems, leather, while EU-U.S. tariff shifts ease but don’t revive 2H25 guidance. With WTO trade growth near 0.9% and softer Fed policy, the dollar drifts lower. Rare-earth risks hedgeable only 20–30%.
Interview conducted September 11, 2025.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: With the U.S. permanently ending the low-value package “de minimis” exemption, what are the following two-quarter impacts on inflation?
Michael Ashley Schulman: In the short term, it may be less than we think. Much of what is bought in de minimis packaging is “want have” not “need have;” meaning you may see less impulse purchases of cheap shirts, costume jewelry, holiday ornaments, knockoff Labubu dolls, almost irresistible handbags, belts, and glow in the dark socket wrenches in online shopping carts as consumers react to the higher prices by just saying no.
Medium-term, we will see an increase in prices as consumers adjust to the reality not only for the “must haves” but also for the trinkets, novelty items, self-treats, little gifts, and impulse purchases—we are a consumer society after all! I’m pencilling in roughly 0.1% to 0.2% of core goods price increases into the holiday quarter, then a fade by early spring as importers pivot to bulk freight and domestic warehousing.
Longer term, new supply sources, routes, and supply chains will be created and negotiated, and new manufacturing facilities will be built. So yes, we will see price rises, but they will be a step up in the going cost, not a continuous inflationary increase. In the long run, prices may return to a more competitive level as supply increases.
For now, the policy change is genuine, abrupt, and already snarling mail flows, which amplifies near‑term pricing noise. We’ve seen international postal traffic to the U.S. plunge 80% in the first week. My estimates aside, researchers peg the consumer cost in the low‑double‑digit billions, which is not a CPI calamity, but it will singe some price tags.
Jacobsen: What about fulfilment costs and Customs and Border Protection compliance?
Schulman: In reference to the best-selling video game of all time, I’m labelling this Call of Duty: Tariff Ops III rather than Black Ops III; see what I did there with the pun on duty? You’ll need your supply chain maps, cheat codes, and advanced powers to make it through each level. But seriously, someone should be working on generative AI and agentic AI apps for that: generative AI to help Customs and Border Protection staff keep up with and account for the new rules, and agentic AI for buy-side fulfillment efficiency.
For now, picture a live SNL sketch where carriers do tariff algebra on stage. Non-postal shipments must clear like regular freight. Postal parcels are subject to either ad valorem duty or a temporary, per-item specific duty while the systems catch up. Postal operators and airlines need bonds, data pipes, and new billing logic, which means higher handling fees and more delays before steadier processes are incorporated. In the short run, third‑party logistics providers will nudge rates and minimums higher, and some sellers will batch inventory into U.S. warehouses to dodge failed doorstep collections. For peak-season shoppers and merchants, that means fewer surprise bargains and more surprise paperwork. It’s “Stranger Things,” but the monster is compliance.
Jacobsen: I can tell by your tone that there is something additional you want to add here or bring up.
Schulman: Yes, Scott, you’re right. How do I phrase this? What is non-obvious here, and few people are discussing, is that Customs and Border Protection compliance means duties are paid early in the journey, and inventory sits longer in domestic warehouses (whereas previously, there was no duty and no domestic warehouse time). Days inventory outstanding stretches from nil, zilch, and zippo to some number greater than zero. Small sellers lose float.
Compliance becomes a competitive moat. The cheapest good is not the most affordable good once you price in forms, data validation, and fines. Scale players—your leading large-cap or focused category-killer international and multinational firms—utilize customs expertise as a barrier to entry or a competitive advantage, capturing market share from micro-exporters. The internet promised disintermediation. Trade rules re‑intermediated it, if that’s a word.
Shippers move from postal to commercial express to ocean consolidation to foreign‑trade zones and bonded warehouses. Each path carries different fees, delays, and risks of returns. Consumers may see quirky price spreads across identical or nearly identical items depending on the fulfillment lane rather than the brand.
Expect product designers to change materials, fasteners, or assembly sequences to jump tariff lines legally. The invisible battleground becomes what’s known as the Harmonized System code, or the Harmonized Tariff Schedule, along with rules of origin paperwork. Swapping out a three‑cent gasket can beat a three‑dollar duty. The business edge is characterized by stable excellence in documentation, working capital, product design, and insurance, rather than mere price optimization.
Additionally, the labour bottleneck is expected to be in the public sector, rather than the private sector. Customs staffing, port inspectors, and certification agencies are capacity constraints. When the bottleneck lies in government headcount, the only solutions are hiring and software. Firms that pre‑clear and pre‑validate will outperform simply by avoiding the queue.
Jacobsen: After Washington doubled tariffs on many Indian goods, which export sectors will now absorb the hit?
Schulman: The blast radius covers India‑to‑America staples. I believe I lightly touched on this in our last interview; textiles, apparel, gems, and jewelry come first to mind, followed by leather and footwear, furniture, select auto components, and a swath of organic chemicals. Smartphones and most pharmaceuticals are broadly carved out for now. Within companies, margins compress, orders reshuffle, and some capacity gets mothballed as buyers trial Vietnam, Mexico, and Turkey. The bigger irony is that both sides take a growth haircut while Russia’s oil cash flow barely flinches.
Jacobsen: Is India’s best near-term response to retaliate or litigate at the WTO, or even re-route its trade?
Schulman: I’m in no position to advise New Delhi or 3-time PM Narendra Modi what to do, but India’s best response may be to do what it is doing, run toward the open arms of its historical enemy and the U.S.’s main rival, China, while looking back over its shoulder to see if the U.S. gets the hint. The headline is ‘tariff pain’; the reaction is portfolio rotation within India. Firms under the Production Linked Incentive support program can lean harder into components where they can prove origin and quality quickly, while sectors with messy traceability lose orders first. For example, lab‑grown diamonds and engineered gems hold share better than mined stones when paperwork tightens.
Or maybe the brilliant maneuver is a three‑step dance number as you suggested in your question, file and litigate at the World Trade Organization (WTO) to set the record, even if there’s no calendar-year resolution. Retaliate with a scalpel, not an axe, to keep room for dealmaking with Washington. Then sprint on re-routing—which is already underway—by leaning harder into Europe, Africa, and Southeast Asia, while courting China for finished drugs and chemicals sales. The innovative shock absorber is diversification and bilateral trading rather than a whole tariff food fight.
Jacobsen: As the EU proposes scrapping tariffs on U.S. industrial goods and the U.S. cuts car tariffs to 15% retroactive to August 1, will original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) in Germany and Italy upgrade 2H25 guidance and 2026 capex?
Schulman: My initial gut instinct says no on the guidance; German and Italian OEM auto manufacturers should not upgrade 2H25 outlooks. But there are nuances and refinements to that bold statement. Many consumers bought forward—shifted demand to earlier in the year, to front-run tariffs on big-ticket items like cars. Thus, all Fiats, as well as low- and mid-end BMWs, Audis, and Mercedes, may not see a pickup in demand, especially since consumerism seems to be softening slightly. High-end buyers of German Porsches, Italian Ferraris, and Lamborghinis, who are less price-sensitive, may maintain their purchasing steady.
Thus, answering your question head-on, on the European Union tariff olive branch and the United States cutting car duties to 15% retroactive to August 1, guidance gets less gloomy before it gets giddy. This trims the tariff cloud that drove profit warnings, but finance chiefs move from red to amber, not straight to green. Expect cautious second‑half language and a cleaner 2026 plan that possibly tilts capital spending toward North American localization with more final assembly and parts plants that immunize against the next plot twist. Call it not-so-Fast and not‑so‑Furious—that movie series still creates some of the best auto puns and analogies.
Jacobsen: With the World Trade Organization revising 2025 goods trade growth to ~0.9% amid front-loading by the IMF, nudging 2025 global GDP to ~3.0%, what does this duo mean for the dollar or trade-finance availability in Q4?
Schulman: With goods trade growth trimmed toward 0.9% and global growth nudging 3%, I foresee air pockets then crosswinds. However, there are more factors affecting the dollar than trade growth. You have President Trump weakening the dollar, and any shift down in interest rates by the Fed may aid that dollar decline trend we’ve seen this year. Front-loading of imports pulled demand into mid-year, so late-year shipping looks choppy. As softer labour numbers coax the Fed toward interest rate cuts, expect an even softer dollar. Trade finance won’t disappear; it will just reprice. Letters of credit and supply-chain finance track SOFR (Secured Overnight Financing Rate), which will drift lower, while banks lean harder on compliance and collateral. Funding remains available for solid credits, pricing eases slightly into year-end, and the paperwork becomes heavy—in other words, compliance becomes the gatekeeper at the door.
Thus, as merchants pivot to traditional invoices and letters of credit, hedging shifts to forward contracts, adding a low‑drama but steady bid for the U.S. dollar into quarter-end even as the greenback possibly weakens.
Jacobsen: Given China’s entrenched rare-earths grip (~70% mining, 90% processing, 93% magnets), how much supply-chain risk can OEMs realistically hedge in the next year or two?
Schulman: Ah, yes, rare earth magnets, the new Fatal Attraction! The best hedge would be for businesses to stock up and buy all they can now. However, it’s really a question of supply constraints aligning with OEMs’ cash or financing constraints. Theoretically, borrowing to fund inventory of this sort should not be too expensive, as it would be an asset-backed loan on an easily sellable commodity; however, underlying price volatility may make the loan slightly pricier. Realistically, though, multi-year inventory stockpiling will address supply and export constraints; thus, the near-term win is not autarky or self-sufficiency, but rather multi-sourcing, e.g., inventory buffers for critical programs, magnet-to-magnet recycling, and design optionality between permanent-magnet motors and wound-rotor or switched-reluctance alternatives. You can hedge 20% to 30% of risk quickly; you hope and buy time for the rest.
U.S. magnet output has restarted at pilot scale, with one Texas facility ramping up neodymium‑iron‑boron (NdFeB) magnets and others signing offtake deals committing OEMs to purchasing all or a significant portion of future output before production begins; this helps secure crucial project financing. India, Australia, Japan, and the U.S. are adding processing capacity, but refining and heavy rare‑earth separation remain the choke points. Large manufacturers can maybe hedge 20% to 30% of critical magnet demand for high‑priority programs by next year using non‑China feedstock, long‑dated contracts, and increased recycling, while the rest stays exposed to Chinese price and policy swings. Full independence is a late‑decade ambition unless you accept significantly higher costs or redesign motors away from rare‑earth magnets.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Michael.
Schulman: Always a pleasure to chat with you about global macro. When geopolitics and liquidity collide, narratives get rewritten in real time, so keep supply chains flexible, portfolios under a watchful eye, and your sense of humour fully hedged. Stay nimble, stay curious, stay caffeinated, hedge your exposure, question your priors, and never let a good regime shift go to waste. Also, can I be so bold as to end in a rhyme?
Inflation sticky, U.S. tricky, China opaque,
The Fed’s soul-searching for policy’s sake.
Markets aren’t stable, they’re feeling the fake.
So stay alert, stay wise, and know what’s at stake.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/22
Dr. Herb Silverman is an American mathematician and secular activist. A Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Mathematics at the College of Charleston, he founded the Secular Coalition for America and the Secular Humanists of the Lowcountry. In 1990, he ran for governor of South Carolina to challenge the state’s ban on atheists in public office. His lawsuit, Silverman v. Campbell, led the South Carolina Supreme Court in 1997 to strike the religious test for office. Silverman is the author of Candidate Without a Prayer and An Atheist Stranger in a Strange Religious Land, and writes frequently for The Humanist and Free Inquiry magazines.
In this interview contribution to an upcoming book entitled Conversations on Antisemitism from In-Sight Publishing with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Silverman discussed how his Jewish upbringing, shaped by Holocaust trauma, led to early mistrust of Gentiles and resistance to his interfaith marriage, but also how personal relationships softened those prejudices. He reflected on reclaiming slurs like “Bagel Boys” through humour, and on how Jewish identity can persist without belief in God. He distinguished antisemitism from legitimate criticism of Israel, stressing that opposing specific leaders or policies is not the same as opposing Jews as a people. He emphasized the importance of humanistic ethics, clarity in rejecting vague “God-talk,” and secular coalition strategies to protect equality and reduce prejudice. His reflections bridge personal memory, legal activism, and cultural commentary—showing how secular identity can coexist with, and even strengthen, Jewish identity in confronting antisemitism.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What is the overview of background and thoughts on antisemitism for you?:
Dr. Herb Silverman: I grew up in a primarily Jewish neighbourhood, in part because my family wanted to avoid antisemites. I was raised never to trust Goyim (Gentiles) because some of my relatives died in the Holocaust. Many family members were upset when I married a Gentile, Sharon Fratepietro. One Orthodox aunt refused even to meet Sharon. This is common in Orthodox families, which causes lots of pain in those families.
As a child, I enjoyed playing baseball, and our team (mostly Jews) played in Little League. Some of our opponents started to call us the “Bagel Boys.” We knew they meant this to be a racial slur, so we changed our team name to “Bagel Boys”.
In high school, I enjoyed math, and a guidance counsellor told me I should major in accounting. I was planning to do so until another teacher (Jewish) said to me that Jews are rarely hired by accounting firms in Philadelphia, where I lived. I am glad I majored in math instead of accounting, for reasons that have nothing to do with religion.
In my interview for a teaching position at the College of Charleston, the department chair (Hugh Haynsworth) asked if I was Jewish. When I asked him why he wanted to know, he said they almost hired a Jew who told him about all the days he would not teach because of his religion. I told Hugh that I was not religious, and I was hired. We have a Jewish Studies program whose head was Ralph Melnick. Hugh saw me talking to Ralph and asked me what field Ralph was in. I said he is a “kike-ologist”. When Hugh asked what that was, I told him he should ask Ralph, which he did. It is easier to get away with racial slurs when you are a member of the tribe.
The nice thing about being a Jew, unlike most religions, is that you do not have to believe in any gods. Moreover, it is easier to criticize antisemitism.
Jacobsen: In “Why I Like Being a Jew,” you emphasize Jewish identity without theism. How does non-creedal identity change thoughts on contemporary antisemitism?
Silverman: When people see those of us without belief in gods, they might start questioning their own beliefs. It might make them less hateful of Jews, especially if they were against Jews because of verses from the Christian Bible.
Jacobsen: You have been called a “self-hating Jew.” You affirm pride in Jewish identity. What criteria help you distinguish intra-Jewish critique from antisemitic rhetoric?
Silverman: I have been called a self-hating Jew because of comments I have made about Israel. Some people think that Jews must love Israel. Not true. I support the state of Israel because of the antisemitism that existed before the state was founded. However, I dislike many of their leaders, especially Netanyahu. We should all have the right to criticize the behaviour of countries, without thinking they should not exist. As an American, there is much I criticize about America.
Jacobsen: Your essay “Jewish Atheists and Koufax Jews.” It maps diverse Jewish self-definitions. How do such categories complicate stereotypes?
Silverman: One of the best days for Jews was October 6, 1995, when the premier pitcher in baseball was Sandy Koufax. He refused to pitch in the World Series on that day because it was Yom Kippur, considered the holiest day of the year for Jews. Americans back then worshipped baseball, often considered the most quintessentially American sport. Many people stopped hating Jews when they learned that Koufax was a Jew. Did Kofax go to synagogue on Yom Kippur? No. He was an atheist who stayed in his room. I define a Koufax Jew as an atheist who refuses to work on Yom Kippur. I am not one, but I respect Jews who are.
Jacobsen: As a child, your Jewish team reclaimed “Bagel Boys.” What have you learned about reclaiming language?
Silverman: That it helps to have a sense of humour, and show it.
Jacobsen: Family fears shaped by the Holocaust. It led to warnings about trusting Gentiles. Your interfaith marriage drew objections. How can communities address historical trauma without reinforcing reciprocal prejudice?
Silverman: Treat people as individuals, not stereotypes. Eventually, most of my family grew to like Sharon.
Jacobsen: You were asked about being Jewish. During an academic job interview, no less, your constitutional case ended South Carolina’s religious test. What policy and institutional reforms best prevent religion-based gatekeeping?
Silverman: Follow the law and keep government out of religion. As individuals, we have the right to be religious or not to be.
Jacobsen: In “God-Talk for Atheists,” you argue for explicit language. How does imprecise God-talk in public life enable antisemitism?
Silverman: We need to explain clearly to people why we do not believe in any gods. This should have nothing to do with antisemitism. We should ask antisemites why they hate Jews.
Jacobsen: Your public stance evolved from “Why I No Longer Support Israel” to “What It Would Take for Me to Support Israel Again.” Where do you draw the boundary in these commentaries?
Silverman: Israel is facing the same kind of struggle that many other countries have encountered — between democracy and theocracy. Unfortunately, Israel has recently been headed in the wrong direction. I will again become a supporter of Israel when it lives up to the ideals in its Declaration of Independence by putting human rights and social justice above sectarian concern and treating its minorities as truly equal citizens. Right now, Netanyahu is bombing innocent civilians in Gaza and starving many of its citizens. Israel needs to display more humanity, especially by helping the homeless and the suffering through no fault of their own.
Jacobsen: As founder of the Secular Coalition for America, what coalition strategies counter antisemitism?
Silveman: The mission of the Secular Coalition is to increase the visibility of and respect for secular viewpoints and to protect and strengthen the secular character of our government. It says nothing specific about antisemitism. However, as far as I know, no supporters of the Secular Coalition are antisemites.
Jacobsen: In later reflections on “being a Jew,” you connect humanistic ethics with Jewish cultural continuity. What educational approaches reduce scripturally conspiratorial antisemitism?
Silverman: Humanistic ethics is consistent with Jewish cultural identity, whether or not the Jew believes in a god. People should stop BELIEVING THE BIBLE IS TRUE.
Jacobsen: You distinguish criticism of Israeli policy from antisemitism. What analytic test do you use in practice?
Silverman: If someone opposes all Jews, regardless of their beliefs, that is antisemitism.
Jacobsen: Which definitional framework helps most in public debate, e.g., the IHRA working definition, the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism, or another?
Silverman: The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance focuses on combating antisemitism, and the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism focuses on antisemitic behaviour in Israel and Palestine, and supports Zionism. I think both organizations are worthwhile, but they sometimes have problems with interpretations. The governor of South Carolina (Mc Master) signed into law an anti-Semitic bill and pointed out that the oldest continuously operating synagogue in the country is in Charleston, where I live. Kahl Kadosh Beth Elohim celebrated its 275th anniversary this year. It was founded in 1749, before we were a country.
Jacobsen: What contemporary “dog whistles” or recurring tropes do you see?
Silverman: People try to say that the US is a Christian country.
Jacobsen: You suggested that a visible, non-creedal Jewish identity can soften prejudice rooted in scripture. What evidence persuades you?
Silverman: Jews can ignore scripture. That’s what we Jewish atheists do. We still strongly oppose antisemitism.
Jacobsen: When does in-group humour defuse a slur? When does it risk normalizing it?
Silverman: humour is the best policy. People need to understand that I am using humour.
Jacobsen: Your family’s Holocaust-shaped caution toward Gentiles eased through personal contact. What practices help honour intergenerational trauma?
Silverman: We need to convince others that we can’t blame people for what happened before they were born—like the Holocaust.
Jacobsen: What matters most for countering conspiratorial antisemitism?
Silverman: Trying to convince others not to blame Jews for what they view as evil in the world.
Jacobsen: You favour clarity over vague “God-talk.” Where does imprecise religious language entrench majority-faith privilege? What concrete fixes might work?
Silverman: People often claim to be Christian when they haven’t read the Bible. Ask them precise questions about Christianity.
Jacobsen: Regarding speech about the Gaza war, what standards keep debate fierce but non-dehumanizing?
Silverman: Don’t assume you know what opponents believe. Ask them specific questions.
Jacobsen: Looking at Silverman v. Campbell experience and Torcaso v. Watkins, what remaining practices function as religious tests?
Silverman: We should always follow the US Constitution regarding religious tests.
Jacobsen: Within secular coalitions, what processes prevent antisemitism without chilling legitimate disagreement?
Silverman: Ask questions about what their problem is with Jews.
Jacobsen: Which trend indicators do you trust most to gauge the prevalence of antisemitism?
Silverman: What people say about why they have problems with Jews.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Herb.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/22
Joanna Lin is the W. Richard and Emily Acree Professor and Associate Professor of Management at the University of Georgia’s Terry College of Business. She earned her PhD in Organizational Behaviour and Human Resource Management from Michigan State University in 2017, after completing graduate and undergraduate studies in business, finance, and accounting. Her research focuses on self-regulation, leadership, organizational citizenship, voice, and gender. Widely published in top journals, she serves on multiple editorial boards. Lin’s honours include the SIOP Distinguished Early Career Contributions Award (2025) and recognition as one of Poets & Quants’ Best 40 Under 40 MBA Professors (2023).
In this interview with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Lin explores how gender prescriptions intersect with core leadership behaviours—initiating structure and consideration. She explains that agentic norms align with traditional leadership expectations, producing backlash for women who set direction decisively, even as meta-analyses show women’s effectiveness equals or exceeds men’s, depending on raters and context. In experience-sampling research, men were energized by both behaviors, while women felt depleted after initiating structure, risking next-day withdrawal. Follower support buffered women’s exhaustion and sustained effectiveness. Lin recommends framing structure-setting as in-role, rewarding clarity, and training followers and leaders to counter stereotype threat and sustain authentic leadership.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: When women and men are young, society—through media and family socialization—teaches us different “prescriptive” expectations. Men are encouraged to be confident and assertive; women are encouraged to be warm and friendly. These gender prescriptions are well-documented in the field of social psychology.
Prof. Joanna Lin: Leadership norms have historically aligned more with agentic traits (assertiveness, decisiveness), which can clash with prescriptive expectations for women. Research shows that women who display highly agentic leadership can face “backlash”—they are often judged as competent but liked less and sometimes seen as less hirable than identically behaving men. This is not universal, but the pattern is reliable across studies.
Jacobsen: You mentioned “initiating structure.” Could you clarify that?
Lin: Yes. Initiating structure is a classic leadership dimension from the Ohio State studies. It involves setting clear expectations, goals, and direction. Alongside it is “consideration,” which focuses on support and respect for followers. Meta-analytic evidence shows both behaviours matter across roles and settings: consideration is strongly linked to positive outcomes, and initiating structure also shows meaningful positive relations.
Jacobsen: Do women leaders experience added pressure here?
Lin: Women leaders can experience stereotype threat in leadership contexts—psychological pressure arising from the risk of confirming negative stereotypes—which can affect feelings, effort, and performance depending on situational cues. This has been demonstrated in experiments that manipulate leadership-relevant stereotypes and group composition; effects vary with context and individual differences such as leadership self-efficacy.
Jacobsen: Does this vary by industry—say hospitals versus the military?
Lin: Context does matter—cultures, occupations, and evaluation settings can moderate perceptions. Still, when you aggregate across contexts, a large meta-analysis found that overall perceived leadership effectiveness does not favour men; in other ratings, women are actually rated as slightly more effective, while men tend to rate themselves higher. So the simple “women leaders are seen as less effective” claim is too broad; it depends on who is rating and the context.
Jacobsen: Are both initiating structure and consideration essential across all fields?
Lin: Yes. Taken together, initiating structure (rules, goals, expectations) and consideration (support, respect) are generally seen as core, in-role leadership behaviours across industries—even if particular sectors emphasize one more than the other. Women who enact strongly agentic behaviours can face context-dependent backlash due to role incongruity. However, broad-scope evidence shows women’s leadership effectiveness is at least on par—and sometimes rated higher—than men’s.
Jacobsen: What about follower support? Stereotypes are stressors, but follower support can buffer that stress—either by reducing it in the group or by providing an extra emotional boost. How does that play out in a real-life professional setting?
Lin: That is a good question. In our study, we found that when followers provide support, it reduces the exhaustion and depletion that women leaders experience due to gender stereotype threat. That support can be as simple as saying, “Thank you for giving us clear direction—it helps us.” Even small acknowledgments, like checking in with leaders to show you value their efforts, can make them feel, “My work is appreciated. I feel validated.” That reduces stress and depletion and helps leaders remain effective. Support can be as simple as that.
Jacobsen: Are there structural redesigns in organizations, particularly evaluation systems, that can minimize gender bias in leadership expectations? Or are more sophisticated and robust measures required?
Lin: Interesting question. Organizations could provide training programs that encourage followers to show visible support for leaders. This is especially important for women leaders when they are setting expectations, since support can help counteract the extra scrutiny they often face. Another approach is to reward leaders for engaging in initiating structured behaviours. If women see that setting goals, clarifying expectations, and providing direction are recognized and rewarded, they may be less likely to experience stereotype threat. It reinforces that “This is my in-role behaviour; this is part of being a leader.” That framing can alleviate some of the pressure of violating gender stereotypes.
Jacobsen: Not all, but many men come in with a paternalistic leadership style. This can penalize women who are seeking to take on leadership roles, simply because of how paternalistic styles approach the workplace. How do these styles interact with workplace dynamics in a way that penalizes women? Are there ways to either mitigate the toxic aspects of paternalistic leadership or structure the workplace so that, while paternalistic styles still exist, the outcomes align with women’s leadership approaches, rewarding them rather than penalizing them?
Lin: This is an interesting question. You are thinking about one of the surprising findings from our study. We expected that men, when they engaged in considerate behaviours—showing concern for followers, taking care of them—might feel some gender stereotype threat. After all, such behaviours do not perfectly align with traditional masculine norms. We thought they might feel exhausted or depleted afterward. However, that is not what we found.
Instead, men also benefited from engaging in considerate behaviours. So, it seems possible that men view these behaviours as part of a paternalistic or fatherly style of leadership: “I can show care and initiate structure at the same time. This is what I am supposed to do as a leader.” In other words, they do not see a conflict between their gender role and these behaviours.
In this study, men benefited from both initiating structure and consideration. Moreover, that is not a bad thing. These are in-role leader behaviours, meaning they are fundamental to the leadership role. If engaging in them energizes men and helps them continue those behaviours the next day, that is positive. It shows that when leaders consistently engage in these core behaviours, they remain effective and reinforce their leadership over time.
For men, these behaviours are reinforcing. They keep doing them, and they benefit from them. However, for women, it is different. After engaging in initiating structure, they often feel exhausted and depleted and may withdraw the next day. That is not good for long-term leadership effectiveness.
This means organizations need to think carefully about how to help women leaders. That could involve training programs for followers—teaching them how to support their leaders in visible ways—or training programs for women leaders themselves, making them aware of gender stereotype threat and equipping them with strategies to cope with it. The larger goal is to overcome stereotype-driven barriers so women can sustain effective leadership without the added burden of depletion.
Jacobsen: And what about stereotype threat across different groups of women? For example, in U.S. census categories, does it affect women differently depending on ethnicity, whether Caucasian, Asian, African American, and so on?
Lin: Can you clarify—do you mean, is there a racial or ethnic layer to how this plays out?
Jacobsen: For example, if a woman takes on a more paternalistic leadership style and is penalized in the workplace, does that happen the same way for every category of woman?
Lin: That is an interesting question. In our study, we conducted an experience sampling method. Each leader completed daily surveys for ten days. What we examined was: on days when leaders engaged in more initiating structure or more consideration, how did that affect how they felt, and how did it influence their leadership behaviours the following day? Because the comparison was within-person, factors like race, ethnicity, or even industry were essentially controlled. In other words, we examined how a leader responded in relation to their own baseline.
So, in this study, we did not test race or ethnicity as a moderator. It is possible, however, that in some contexts, racial or ethnic stereotypes could play a role—maybe not strictly gender stereotypes, but other stereotype threats that intersect with gender. That would be an exciting area for future research.
Jacobsen: What about generational differences—say, Baby Boomers versus Gen Z?
Lin: That is another important dimension. I think attitudes about gender are evolving. What people experience today is not the same as what leaders experienced 30 or 50 years ago. Younger generations may feel less threatened by gender stereotypes when engaging in leadership behaviours, because norms are shifting. That said, when reviewers of our study asked whether stereotype threat still exists, we checked recent meta-analyses, and the evidence shows it remains real and measurable today. So, while I hope future generations will feel it less, I cannot say with certainty that it will entirely disappear. Gender stereotypes continue to evolve, but they have not yet gone away.
Jacobsen: What was the spark for the original study that led to this line of research?
Lin: Honestly, it came from my own experiences as a professor. I mentor students, and at times, I have noticed it takes extra energy to set expectations—reminding them of deadlines, giving clear directions. That personal awareness, combined with the literature on stereotype threat and leadership, motivated me to study how these dynamics play out systematically.
I often find myself saying to students, “I want you to focus on this, follow this direction, and do this.” Honestly, I notice that my male colleagues can say the same thing easily—it feels natural for them. They say it and move on. However, for me, it requires extra effort. Showing care, offering support—that comes easily. However, setting rules and engaging in initiating structure takes additional energy. Sometimes I even need to think about it in advance, rehearse it, or jot it down so I do not come across it the wrong way.
That personal experience was a key motivator for this study. I wanted to understand leadership behaviours through the lens of gender, and hopefully inspire future research that deepens our understanding of how gender dynamics shape leadership.
Jacobsen: Let us explore the factor of docility. How does that play into this? In other words, does being perceived as docile—passive, submissive, overly compliant—increase or decrease stress in the workplace? In some organizations, leadership demands decisiveness and leading from the front. At other times, it may involve stepping back. However, regardless of context, there is often a gendered expectation of docility for women. How does that undermine organizational effectiveness?
Lin: Interesting. So you are asking from two angles: first, when followers are docile—say, passive or disengaged—does that affect how leaders treat them in a gendered way? Moreover, second, when women leaders themselves are expected to be docile, how does that expectation affect their leadership?
Jacobsen: On the follower side, if subordinates are overly passive, leaders may struggle to motivate them or may have to exert more effort in direction-setting. On the leader side, the problem is that gender norms often expect women to be docile, supportive, rather than directive. That can undermine effectiveness, because when a woman leader acts decisively or assertively, she risks backlash for violating gender expectations. However, if she conforms to the expectation of docility, she may fail to provide necessary structure or direction. Either way, organizational effectiveness suffers.
Lin: This is interesting. In the leadership literature, what you described as “docile” leadership is often called laissez-faire leadership—when leaders essentially do nothing and avoid taking action. It is possible that when women leaders feel, “This takes me so much energy,” they withdraw and eventually slip into these more passive behaviours. That is unfortunate, but it could explain part of the broader pattern we see.
According to the statistics, there are fewer women in senior leadership roles, whether in the C-suite or other high-level positions. On the surface, people say, “We want equality. We want more women in leadership.” However, the reality is complex. It is not only that followers sometimes resist women leaders because their leadership does not fit traditional gender stereotypes. It is also possible that women themselves may feel depleted.
For example, initiating structure—setting expectations, telling others what to do—is a core leadership behaviour. However, for women, it often feels like it drains personal resources because it clashes with prescriptive gender norms. That exhaustion can lead them to withdraw, which in turn creates docile or passive leadership behaviours. Those behaviours reduce their effectiveness and perpetuate the cycle.
That is why it is crucial to determine how to support women in leadership roles. Much of my earlier research focused only on identifying problems. However, in this paper, we wanted to go further—how can we support women so they can overcome stereotype threat?
One solution we have studied is follower support. However, future research could expand on this. For example, training programs could help women anticipate stereotype threat: “This is something you may experience, and here are strategies to manage it.” Framing initiating structure as an in-role behaviour—something that is expected and rewarded in leadership, regardless of gender—may also help women view it as part of the job, rather than a violation of their identity.
In addition, support can come from multiple directions: followers, organizations, and peers. Visible encouragement and validation can help reduce stress, making it easier for women leaders to engage in essential leadership behaviours without feeling depleted.
Jacobsen: So that way, women leaders will be more effective the next day. Last question: How can research like this help women see greater flexibility in their leadership styles? Moreover, for men, who may feel stuck in a particular style of leadership, too?
Lin: There are many different ways to convey core leadership behaviours. One possible approach for women leaders—though we did not directly test this in our study—is to recognize that the same behaviours can be expressed in different ways. For instance, when setting expectations or giving direction, the language you choose matters. You can use words and phrasing that feel comfortable to you, even if they are less overtly assertive. The key is that you are still engaging in initiating structure—you are still providing clarity and direction—but in a way that feels authentic and genuine.
That could be one way forward. Initiating structure and consideration are both in-role leadership behaviours; leaders need to engage in them daily. However, the flexibility lies in how you enact them. Finding a style that is both effective and comfortable may help women sustain these behaviours and continue being seen as effective leaders.
Jacobsen: Joanna, thank you so much for your time. I will send this to you shortly.
Lin: Thank you—it was so lovely to meet you. I truly appreciate your thoughtful and insightful questions. Honestly, most of the interviews I have done have not gone into this much detail. This was wonderful.
Jacobsen: I appreciate the compliment. Thank you again.
Lin: Thank you.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/21
Valeriia Kholodova is a Ukrainian non-profit program manager who leads regional programs for Hillel CASE (Central Asia & Southeastern Europe), coordinating Jewish student life across Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, Belarus and Azerbaijan. Born in Donetsk, she moved to Kyiv in 2014 and later to Israel, continuing her Hillel work remotely. Her portfolio spans student engagement, educational and cultural programming, and community support. Kholodova has been affiliated with Hillel since at least 2010 and appears in coverage of Jewish communal responses to the wars in Ukraine and Israel. She previously studied at Donetsk National University. She organized regional events and training.
In this interview with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Valeriia Kholodova contrasts 2014’s shock with 2022’s full-scale war, describing Ukraine’s Jewish community evacuating thousands, delivering food, cash-like certificates, blankets, power banks, and water to besieged regions, while sustaining traditions and programs. Students face disrupted schooling, isolation, and trauma, yet volunteerism grows and Hillel expands group therapy and safe spaces. Ties to Israel are intimate, but attention follows immediate danger. Language shifts to Ukrainian/English, and collaboration with civil society deepens; identity increasingly fuses as “Ukrainian Jewish,” symbolized by Tryzub-Magen David jewelry. Regional ties persist despite limits (e.g., Belarus). Jewish solidarity strengthened. Amid devastation, resilience and conscious identity harden under pressure.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: People may know—or may not—that there is a sizeable Jewish heritage in Eastern Europe, and Ukraine is one of those places as well. When the war first started in 2014, and then really escalated in February 2022, what was the reaction of the Jewish community at those times? How have people found solidarity in community, helped the war effort, and drawn inner strength from tradition, for instance?
Valeriia Kholodova: The situations in 2014 and 2022 were completely different. When it happened in Donetsk and Luhansk, I was living in Donetsk with my family. At that time, nobody understood that it would be a protracted conflict. We helped a lot—we supported Jewish people and stayed connected with them. The most vulnerable group was older adults who could not leave their homes. They were not active; they were afraid. We were in touch with them every day, checking what was happening.
I remember that I was working in HACED, a charity foundation, and we helped many people evacuate to other parts of Ukraine. At that time, the Dnipro, Kharkiv, and Kyiv regions were safe places. But even though it was a local conflict, it was excruciating.
For example, that summer I participated in Taglit. Do you know Taglit? It’s a program for young people—ten days in Israel. In that group, we had 40 students. Only five of them returned to Donetsk. People tried to survive. We didn’t really understand what was happening. It was a shock for us. After that, I moved with my family to Kyiv.
Before the full-scale war, I lived in Kyiv. Honestly, I couldn’t believe it could happen. My supervisor from Israel called me, because at that time I worked in a Chabad charity foundation. He asked if he should prepare an extra budget in case something happened. I told him, “No, it’s not possible, there’s no way.” But he asked, “What do we need to be ready for if it does happen?” I told him, from my experience: “You need cash. If it happens, you won’t be able to do transactions or use the banking system. If you want to help Ukrainian Jewish people, you need to have cash.”
Unfortunately, it did happen. I was in Kyiv. I woke up at five in the morning because my friend called me. I asked, “Alina, are you crazy? Why are you calling me at five in the morning?” She told me, “Valeria, it’s happening.”
I was very calm. At that time, I lived in central Kyiv. I didn’t hear planes or any other noise. That is my private story—it’s not about what the Jewish communities were doing at that moment.
We tried to stay in a safe place for one week with my friends and my supervisor. But what did the Jewish community in Ukraine start doing at that time? They consolidated around this problem. They began evacuating people. I don’t know how many buses and how many planes went to Israel.
At that time, we organized buses to travel to Kyiv twice a day. I can speak about Kyiv, but I know this was happening across Ukraine—to Moldova, Romania, Poland—many different directions. That was the first thing. The second was helping people with food.
Before the war, I had already established a system to assist those in need every two months. It was my charity project, although I was the chief of the project, not the founder. Every two months, we would give people certificates so they could purchase food or other necessities. When the war began, we expanded this. Everyone who asked for help received food certificates. I remember we bought many blankets and other basic supplies. It was tough to organize.
I think it was April or May, I don’t remember exactly. At that time, the Chernihiv region was under occupation, and we provided food for the Jewish community there. It was not very easy. We used all our connections with the army and with volunteers, because it was a border region. I don’t know how many cars of humanitarian aid we sent there. But whatever we could do, we did. It was a tremendous and organized effort.
After that, the situation kept changing. Every day, we created new ways to help people who remained in Ukraine, because every day and every month brought new challenges. For example, in one winter, there was a blackout. Our primary targets then were to provide power banks, lamps, batteries, and other things that would help people survive.
In Mykolaiv, they had a problem with water because Russia destroyed the water pipes. We sent as much water and as many water-cleaning supplies as we could to that region. We constantly monitored what people needed and tried to provide it. Unfortunately, now it has become almost routine.
At the beginning, during the first few months, it was a shock, and we were trying to survive. Now, people are still trying to survive, but also continue their lives. Almost all Jewish organizations in Ukraine continue their work—not only with humanitarian aid, but also with values, traditions, programs, and engagement. They are trying to continue their everyday life in this wild world.
It is not very easy. For example, a few days ago, I just returned from Ukraine. We organized a camp for Jewish families with children who have trauma. But in reality, now 100 percent of people in Ukraine are living with trauma. We had some critics, but it was important for these families.
Many families lost a father or a mother, leaving children alone. It is tough to see what has happened to people during this period. They are trying to live their lives, but now they need more than just material help. They need strong psychological and social support.
Jacobsen: What about the student experience through all of this? You have contact with students. How has their experience of studies been? For many people, studies are a crucial part of intellectual, emotional, and social development. It is where they interact with intelligent peers pursuing different and diverse fields. How has this situation impacted their sense of self at this time of life, as well as the logistics of studying?
Kholodova: If you want, I can tell you about one student—my son. I have an adult son; I am not so young. When the war started, he was 15. Now he is 18. For me, it feels like a lost generation, because it has been very complicated.
Before, there were three years of COVID. They stayed home, studying online. Then the war started. I don’t know how many months of education they missed, because many families tried to send their kids out of the country, and universities and schools worked only online. Even now, many schools and universities continue online. This generation has missed the skills to communicate face-to-face. They are afraid to go out and form social circles.
I can speak about students in general, not only Jewish students. In this situation, Jewish organizations like Hillel and others working with Jewish youth and students are doing a great job. They work with students face-to-face, offline. They talk to them, help them, and create safe spaces for communication and for their needs. This is very important now, but still very difficult. I don’t know what will happen in two or three years with this generation.
All situations are different. Some young people adapt to this situation much better than others. However, during these three and a half years of war, this generation, specifically the student community, has become increasingly active in volunteer projects. They try to do something, not only ask for help. There are many volunteer projects both inside the Jewish community and across Ukraine.
We will see in time. Now it is very complicated to say more, because many psychologists describe this as post-traumatic stress disorder. But it is not post-trauma—we are still in trauma. Post-trauma will come later, I hope, after Ukraine wins this war.
It doesn’t matter if students live inside the country or outside. Believe me, it is not very easy. I have been a refugee once or twice. I changed my life, but I was an adult. My son has changed his life one, two, three, four, even five times. The war first started when he was seven. It is tough. He doesn’t know where his house is, where his belongings are, where his friends are, or where his safe place is.
Jacobsen: How do students with a connection to Israel view things? People often assume they all do, but not everyone with a Jewish background necessarily has that connection. Some may have citizenship, while others may not, but they still feel a sentimental bond. Others, however, don’t have geopolitical considerations at all—they care about their lives in their own country. People are complicated, and their circumstances are unique.
So, in terms of how they see things, but for Ukrainian Jewish people who know the war in Ukraine, and then see the war in Gaza, do they feel a sense of solidarity around both of these wars? Or do they tend to focus on whichever war is closest to them—if they’re in Israel, they focus on Israel; if they’re in Ukraine, they concentrate on Ukraine?
Kholodova: First of all, Jewish life in Ukraine is a little different from Jewish life in Western Europe. Thank God, and thanks to our work, the level of antisemitism here is lower. That is very good. I have been working in the Jewish community for over twenty years—possibly twenty-two or twenty-three, I don’t remember exactly. We have numerous projects and programs, and we frequently engage with students and the broader community about Israel.
For us in Ukraine, Israel has never been seen as an aggressor. For us, Jewish life and Israel are equal values. After October 7, of course, we provided much information about what was happening. Our students were monitoring closely because a very high percentage of Ukrainian Jewish people have direct connections to Israel. Maybe your grandmother, your grandfather, your uncle, or your friend lives there. Maybe someone you knew from Taglit or Hillel lives there. The connection is direct and very strong.
But when you are sitting under bombs in Ukraine—in Kyiv, Kharkiv, Dnipro, or another region—of course, you are worried about yourself. It is excruciating, yes, what happened on October 7, what happened in Gaza, or what happened in Jerusalem during that terrible terror attack. But when you are under bombardment in Ukraine, your focus shifts to your own problems and survival.
That does not mean what happens in Israel is not essential. It is necessary, but your focus changes. In Ukraine, we work very strongly with Israeli topics. We have programs because it is necessary for us to make sure antisemitism in Ukraine does not grow. We know that even in Israel, there are antisemitic people, but we want Ukraine to remain a safe place for Jewish people and students. We want it to continue being a place where being Jewish is an honour.
I can also speak from my personal experience. When I was in Israel under Iranian bombardment, of course, I was less worried about what was happening in Kyiv at that moment. But when I was in Kyiv under Russian bombs, my focus was on surviving there.
The connection between Israel and Ukraine is powerful. First, because for many years our programs have had direct ties with Israel. Second, because of the close, personal connections, face-to-face. I don’t know a single person in the Jewish community in Ukraine who doesn’t have some near relative, friend, or even a neighbour in Israel.
Jacobsen: What support has Hillel provided to students and communities since February 24, 2022? And what are things that students and communities want but you can’t provide because of the circumstances?
Kholodova: Initially, when the war began, we focused on providing our students with necessities, such as food, food boxes, and safe places to stay. I can give you an example. Ukraine is not a small country, and it is beautiful—I love Ukraine. But the western regions, like Lviv and the Carpathian Mountains, were much quieter. In contrast, Kharkiv is very close to the Russian border, and it faced daily attacks.
When the war started, many students from Kharkiv evacuated to Lviv. They stayed in apartments with Lviv students. For us, Lviv became a hub. It was a gigantic form of support. We couldn’t afford apartments at that time, but Lviv students invited those in need and provided them with a place to stay. For many months—maybe up to a year—Kharkiv students lived in Lviv thanks to this solidarity.
We also opened a program for psychological help. It wasn’t private consultations, but group therapy. Now, all Hillel branches in Ukraine have something similar to a psychology club or meetings with psychologists to try to provide help. For example, less than a few weeks ago, we had a large summer forum in the Carpathian Mountains. Before that, we received training from the Trauma Coalition in Israel, which worked with our staff. We are doing what we can, but you must understand: the people working in Jewish organizations in Ukraine are in trauma, too. Sometimes they burn out even faster than participants.
It’s not like the situation where you live in a safe place, come to Ukraine, help people, and then return to your “unicorn reality.” For example, I live in Israel. In June, I took my son there for the summer holidays. Just a few days later, the Iranian war began. We sat in our apartment, and my son, who is always joking and trolling me, said, “Come on, what’s next? Somalia?” You try to find a safe place to live, and every time something new happens. I guess I am a fortunate girl.
It’s our reality now. But you know, for example, I feel very safe when I am at home in Israel. I’m not afraid. When I am in Ukraine, it is much scarier to see what happens. Even when you check the news or sit under the Shahids—the drones—you know what it is, and it is not very comforting. But every morning you wake up and try to live.
Jacobsen: What about young people who are still developing their core Jewish cultural identity and sense of self while war is happening? It’s a tricky question—how does that work for them? What issues come up?
Kholodova: It’s exciting—really, a very interesting question. My husband is Israeli, and he’s not from the former Soviet Union. His grandparents came to Palestine before. He is Ashkenazi Jewish, and you need to understand why I start with this story.
He always asks me, “Lerochka, I don’t understand why people want to be Jewish. I was born Jewish. I had no choice. I live in Israel, and I am Israeli. I don’t even know what happened on my eighth day when I was circumcised; nobody asked me who I am. But I don’t understand why people who live outside of Israel—people who for twenty years didn’t think of themselves as Jewish, didn’t even know they were Jewish—suddenly want to become Jewish. Everybody hates us.”
For him, before he met me, he didn’t even know what Jewish life outside Israel was like. So when a Ukrainian girl in Israel told him about Jewish community life, he was shocked. He asked, “What is this?” It was a funny story, but I think it explains something.
Why do people want this identity? Because for them it is essential. Jewish life in Ukraine is exciting. When I started working twenty-five years ago, Jewish life in Ukraine had always offered many more opportunities than ordinary life—seminars, camps, activities, and good speakers. It was a very bright life at that time. Even before the war, and during the war, Ukraine has maintained a high level of social life. You can still find many activities. But if you work with Jewish values, and you live them, then people want to be Jewish and proud of being Jewish.
It is not complicated—if you believe that being Jewish is something to be proud of, you can share those values with your community, your students, and the people around you. They begin to share your values with you. And thankfully, in Ukraine, being Jewish is now safer than, for example, in France, Italy, or other countries.
Jacobsen: I have a question less about the core and more about the periphery. Hillel works in Belarus, Moldova, Georgia, and Azerbaijan. How does the war context affect people in those countries—people who, at least as far as we know, are not being bombed daily by UAVs, ballistic missiles, and so on?
Kholodova: For example, we cannot speak directly with Belarus. We have excellent private relationships between staff and students, but we cannot organize common programs or projects at this time. First of all, Ukrainian society would not understand. We cannot explain, “Listen, Jewish life is separate from the war.” It is too sensitive. And it is also dangerous for people in Belarus, for students and staff. They cannot show that they have connections with us.
In other countries—Moldova, Georgia, Azerbaijan—the situation is different. The general position of these countries is much closer to us, so communication is not a problem. Georgia especially tries to support us, because they know—they were in the same situation, and even now they are in a similar situation, as their government is a proxy of Russia.
We have had problems, but believe me, they were inside our own circle, inside our staff. We solved them and found solutions. Now, it has become more complicated. Before the full-scale war, and even before 2014, we used Russian as a universal language. Now in Ukraine, we use only Ukrainian. Our colleagues often do not understand us, so we try to use more English. That is how we have found a way to move forward together.
Jacobsen: You’re a refugee. I’ve known other Ukrainian Jewish refugees. Do you see parallels between Jewish cultural narratives in history and the current displacement experienced by Ukrainians?
Kholodova: I connect my refugee experience more with Ukrainian history. It feels like a different context. I am a refugee, yes—but it is more tied to Ukraine’s story.
Jacobsen: That’s actually a perfect point. How do Jewish communities and institutions like Hillel work with wider civil society organizations during the war?
Kholodova: We do much collaboration. During the war, many volunteer organizations opened in Ukraine. They help in many spheres—supporting the military, assisting refugees, and caring for animals. Ukraine has become like a big volunteer hub. Everybody is collecting money, food, and power banks.
Before 2022, Hillel already had many volunteer projects. However, perhaps 90 percent of our volunteer activity took place within the Jewish community, as that is our mission. Now, in every city, every Hillel, every organization has powerful connections with other volunteer and social foundations. It is important.
You are not only Jewish in Ukraine now—you are Ukrainian Jewish in Ukraine. People here carry both identities, and sometimes they are equal. Before the war, being Ukrainian was natural—nobody wanted to kill you for that. They targeted you because you were Jewish. Now they want to kill you because you are Ukrainian. So you hold both identities.
I know many Jewish students who wear jewelry with the Magen David or the Hamsa. But now I also see much jewelry with the Tryzub—the Ukrainian trident—combined with the Magen David. It has become very natural: “I am Ukrainian Jewish.” Just like in Israel, you are Israeli Jewish; here, you are Ukrainian Jewish.
Of course, we’ve expanded our social activities, and our students are very active in volunteer projects. For us, this is natural. It is crucial for Ukraine, but it is also essential for the image of the Jewish community, to show we are not separate.
I’m sure you have heard of Rabbi Asman in Kyiv. He continues his work. His community is very active. He is a fascinating person.
When the war began, Rabbi Asman started helping not only Jewish people but all Ukrainians. Why? Because you need to show that Jewish people care not only about their own close circles, but also about the country they live in. It creates a perfect image. Especially after October 7, with antisemitism always present, it is essential to show we are not separate.
It is the same with Hillel. Of course, our mission is to work with Jewish students and communities, but you cannot live in this country and say, “Don’t touch me, I’m not involved.” If you are Ukrainian Jewish, you must also share Ukrainian values—especially now.
I am talking about the Central Synagogue in Brodsky. Asman works very effectively in the political sphere. He meets with Budanov and Zelensky, invites them to the synagogue, travels to Washington, and has connections with Trump and other spiritual leaders. It is essential—he does excellent work.
Jacobsen: I was thinking about that the other day. Whether someone is secular or religious, the political and interpersonal importance of religion—and the tactful use of religion—is critical in building and maintaining ties when it is such a central factor in so many people’s lives.
Lessons you can teach us. What can the global Jewish community learn from the responses of Ukrainian Jews in their moment of crisis—not only over the last three years, but also in the years preceding it? How can they learn from you in terms of the type of response you have given to this war and the crisis that follows it?
Kholodova: First of all, we always feel a powerful connection with the international Jewish community. It is not only about Ukraine and Israel. For example, Hillel in Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia are all part of Hillel International.
And I remember how, from the very first moments, they called us many times, trying to support and help us. In life, some crises destroy relationships, but some crises make them stronger. This crisis, this terrible situation, worked in the second way. It brought the Jewish community closer, even more than before.
I feel this strongly. Hillel in Poland, for example, was pleased to help our students when they fled to Poland. And not only Poland—they stayed in touch with us, asking what we needed. The Jewish world is global, and it is exciting. I am happy that we are strong and we are together, no matter what happens around us.
Jacobsen: That leads to a very tricky question. What about relations between Jewish communities that share identity as Jews, whether Reform, Orthodox, or Conservative, but who live in countries at war with each other?
Palestine and Israel are different—there are not many Jewish people in Palestine, as far as I know. But in Russia, there are a lot of Jews. In Ukraine, there are a lot of Jews. Canada has many Jewish people. America has many Jewish people. If Canada and the United States went to war with each other, the same question would apply. How does that complicate cultural maintenance and cultural identity?
Kholodova: Yes, it’s a tricky question. You want to catch me! I can’t really answer now what I think about such a situation. I hope it will never happen, because believe me, I don’t want to see it become true for our state.
But I can share a joke. With my refugee experience, one day I asked my husband, “Maybe we should move to New Zealand.” He asked, “Why New Zealand?” I said, “Nobody knows about New Zealand. I think it’s the one safe place in the world.” He said, “Don’t go to New Zealand—if you go there, something will happen there too!”
You need to understand the reality. Who is guilty in this situation? For example, if you had asked me fifteen years ago about my thoughts on Russia, I would have said, “They are our brothers. I speak Russian. I live in Donetsk,” and so on. But the context changes depending on what happens.
If Canada attacked the United States, you would be guilty. If America attacked, you would be guilty. You need to understand the situation—what happened before, what the reasons are, whether you are defending or being attacked.
I hope—and I wish for all people in this world—that they never experience what I have lived through. I had to start life over twice as an adult. Starting life again and again is very difficult. I managed it—I am happy I met my husband in Israel, I continue my work, and I love what I do. But it is painful, and not everyone can do it. Not because they are not strong, but because it is simply very tough and painful.
Jacobsen: Let me wrap up with this question. One thing I’ve taken from some of the travels I’ve faced is an analogy: with languages, every language on the surface looks different, but underneath there is a shared structure that allows us to learn, speak, and, with education, write a language.
I feel more and more that people are the same way. Cultures may look very different, but when you interact one-on-one—especially now that translation removes language barriers—you find the same frustrations, the same joys, and the same humanity.
What positives have you taken away from this war? I know it feels strange to ask about positives in the middle of such devastation, but in terms of resilience, what have you seen in people as they rebuild identities, sometimes fusing them? For example, the way many Ukrainian Jews mix those identities into something new.
Kholodova: The example of jewelry I gave earlier is about something you can touch—a symbol you can see. But I think identity is also built inside—in your soul, in your heart. Usually, you become conscious of your identity when someone tries to destroy it.
Before 2014, I never gave much thought to my identity—whether I was Ukrainian or Russian. I spoke Russian because it was normal for me at the time. I didn’t face the kind of situation that forced me to reflect on it.
It may sound strange, but this is why Jewish people preserved their identity for thousands of years. They were forced to. They couldn’t relax; they had to think about who they were. And now it is the same with Ukrainians. Unfortunately, identity often becomes stronger in the most challenging situations.
You start to understand who you are, and you need to make a choice. Not everyone in Ukraine has made this choice, but I’m sure that 95 percent of Ukrainians now understand that they are Ukrainian—or Ukrainian Jews. Some people sit and wait. Perhaps they wait for communism to return; I don’t know.
However, this is not just about Ukraine; it’s about the entire world. For example, if you went out tomorrow morning, had your coffee, and asked 10 or 15 people what they would do if war started in their country, half of them would probably say they’d look for ways to get to New Zealand.
That’s human. It’s not “normal,” but it is part of human nature.
Jacobsen: Any closing thoughts or quotes based on the conversation today?
Kholodova: In Hebrew, there is a phrase: “Over, over, God.”
Jacobsen: Excellent. Valeriia, thank you very much for your time today and for participating in this. I greatly appreciate it.
Kholodova: Yes, thank you. Good night.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/20
Dr. Arthur L. “Bud” Burnett II, Professor of Urology and Oncology and Director of the Male Consultation Clinic at Johns Hopkins, is a recognized men’s health expert and urologic surgeon-scientist. A co-discoverer of nitric oxide’s role in erectile function—the breakthrough that enabled Viagra—he has performed more than 3,000 radical prostatectomies for prostate cancer and thousands of additional surgeries for genitopelvic disorders and reconstructions. He has authored over 500 peer-reviewed papers and directs the Male Consultation Clinic at the Johns Hopkins Brady Urological Institute. His book, The Manhood Rx, translates decades of science into practical strategies that optimize strength, stamina, intimacy, and longevity for men over 40. Burnett reframes aging, masculinity, and self-care through evidence, survivorship, and resilience, and is a frequent contributor to media.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How should fitness priorities shift after 50 to preserve strength and mobility?
Dr. Arthur L. “Bud” Burnett II: Priorities may well emphasize regular physical activity and exercising for agility and muscle tone, not muscle mass …and avoidance of musculoskeletal injury …as one gets older.
Jacobsen: Which lab and imaging baselines do you recommend?
Burnett II: Routine health screening as advised by a regular primary health care professional.
Jacobsen: What is the relationship between sleep, stress physiology, and erectile function?
Burnett II: Adequate physical and mental recuperative time in accordance with a regular and sufficient sleep schedule is a fundamental aspect of general well being, which is also in line with healthful sexual functioning.
Jacobsen: What recovery framework sustains training adherence?
Burnett II: Regularity and moderate levels of physical exercise.
Jacobsen: How do mindfulness and purpose improve outcomes for men over 50?
Burnett II: Mindfulness implies mental health preservation. As one ages, mental acuity functions can decline such that real efforts to maintain physical and mental wellbeing and likewise reduce bodily stress will be beneficial in this regard.
Jacobsen: What evidence-based sexual rehabilitation protocols post-prostatectomy restore function?
Burnett II: This is the conundrum: sexual function rehabilitation protocols are well intentioned and subscribed but not really uniformly established or well-evidenced to restore erection ability. Despite this, some form of postoperative coaching with use of erection aids is understood to be advantageous for overall functional recovery.
Jacobsen: What nutrition and supplementation targets counter sarcopenic obesity?
Burnett II: A balanced diet consisting of nutritious food groups is recommended. Intake of natural fruits and vegetables and avoidance of processed foods falls in line with this principle. It also implies pursuing other healthful lifestyle objectives such as maintaining weight and having regular exercise.
Jacobsen: How can men reframe masculinity as performance declines while at the same time emotional intimacy grows?
Burnett II: Masculinity should not be defined by some level of youthful sexual prowess. Rather, it is quite acceptably framed as understanding normal male physical and sexual capability for chronological age and cultivating an attitude of mutual respect and emotional support within a relationship.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Arthur.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/19
Riane Eisler, an Austrian-born American systems scientist, futurist, and human rights advocate, is renowned for her influential work on cultural transformation and gender equity. Best known for “The Chalice and the Blade,” she introduced the partnership versus dominator models of social organization. She received the Humanist Pioneer Award, and in conversation with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Eisler emphasized the urgent need for humanists to focus on values-based systems and the transformative power of caring economics. Drawing on neuroscience and history, she argues that peace begins at home and calls for a shift in worldview to build more equitable, sustainable, and compassionate societies rooted in connection rather than control. The three books of hers of note that could be highlighted are The Chalice and the Blade—now in its 57th U.S. printing with 30 foreign editions, The Real Wealth of Nations, and Nurturing Our Humanity: How Domination and Partnership Shape Our Brains, Lives, and Future (Oxford University Press, 2019).
In this dialogue, Scott Douglas Jacobsen interviews Eisler on peace, violence, and the domination–partnership social model. Eisler argues that large-scale war is not inevitable but a symptom of domination systems that reward violence and hierarchy. Partnership systems, by contrast, prioritize caring, equality, and sustainable relations with self, others, and the Earth. She stresses the importance of early childhood experiences, gender equality, economic valuation of care work, and cultural narratives in shaping societies. In an era of nuclear weapons and climate crisis, Eisler insists that moving toward partnership is not just moral but essential for survival.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: We are here for a partnership study series with Riane Eisler, a scholar who developed the domination–partnership social model and founded the Center for Partnership Systems. Thank you for joining me again. A big question: What is peace? What is violence? You’ve often said nature presents dichotomies as opposites. Should we define peace and violence as opposites? And if so, should they be described in relation to each other?
Riane Eisler: We commonly think of peace as merely an interval between wars—as if war were inevitable. Yet archaeological and historical evidence shows that while interpersonal violence is ancient, the scale and organization of warfare increased markedly with settled agriculture, social stratification, and the rise of states. In other words, large-scale, organized war is not a timeless human constant; it intensified under particular social conditions.
Treating war as “inevitable” serves systems that maintain control through superior force. Organized violence has long been used to dominate other nations and groups—and even to control one’s own population. So there is a distinction, but also a connection, between social systems that normalize the use of violence, fear, and pain and the persistence of war over peace.
Jacobsen: Over several millennia, you describe an ebb and flow between domination and partnership systems. You’ve suggested two broad phases of violence: pre-industrial and post-industrial, with mechanization making wars more deadly. Is that a useful distinction, or is war simply war?
Eisler: It’s useful. War as an instrument of control through superior force is a symptom of domination systems. When societies reward such behaviour, technological advances—from metallurgy to industrial manufacturing to digital targeting—tend to amplify harm. If incentives were aligned with partnership values, we would invest more in nonviolent conflict resolution rather than in escalating the capacity to inflict suffering.
Jacobsen: What about subterfuge, coercion, and torture as elements of war?
Eisler: They’re part of the same control toolkit. And now, in a nuclear, post-industrial era—under climate stress and with weapons capable of mass destruction—we have to view war through a survival lens. The risk is not only state-to-state conflict but also catastrophic decisions by actors driven by absolutist ideologies, sometimes couched in religious terms. Humanity now wields destructive power once imagined as belonging only to a “father-god,” which makes cultivating partnership systems not just preferable, but necessary.
In most world religions, ultimate power was once attributed to the divine—the power of destruction. Humanity now holds that power. This means we have to ask what is truly adaptable from a realistic perspective. In the age of nuclear weapons, climate change, and global crises, war is not flexible.
Jacobsen: Then peace is not just the absence of war. In partnership studies, what do we mean by peace in a more technical sense?
Eisler: At the Center for Partnership Systems, including in our “Peace Begins at Home” summit, we emphasize that peace is not just the absence of war. Peace is a way of relating—relating to ourselves, to others, and to our Mother Earth. “Others” includes family members, neighbours, communities, and other nations.
We must create institutions that help us move away from domination. People raised in domination systems believe there are only two options: you either dominate or you are dominated. Naturally, this mindset justifies the use of force. But in an age of nuclear weapons, that logic is ultimately self-destructive. We have to find another way of relating.
Neuroscience confirms that early family relations shape lifelong patterns. This is why peace-building must begin at home. Violence and authoritarianism are deeply connected, and if we want to change the roots of violence, we must change how children experience care and authority in their earliest years. This is what we highlight in the “Peace Begins at Home” summit: there is a third alternative, which we call partnership. Partnership requires developing institutions and behaviours that help us address our existential crises.
Even in nations such as the United States, which is experiencing a regression toward domination, partnership elements remain. Many organizations are working for peace and demonstrating that alternatives exist.
Jacobsen: We often talk about binaries in nature. I see two aspects to that. If we use a correspondence theory of truth, some binaries—like hot and cold—are sensory and physical. Others are conceptual and socially constructed, especially in human relations. For example, if you look at the Earth and the moon, the binary of East and West does not exist in any physical sense; it is a human construct.
In human affairs, we often talk about “East” and “West” as dichotomies, but in practice, people are far more similar than those categories suggest. These global binaries exist in some cultural or geopolitical metrics, but when it comes to individuals, the differences are often overstated.
There’s not much difference between people across supposed cultural divides. So, when we look at the evidence presented at the summit, where do these false dichotomies come from? How do they become the basis for seeing others as “the other,” with a negative valence?
Eisler: What you’re pointing to is really an issue of consciousness, of worldview. If you have a partnership worldview, you recognize that we are interconnected. Nations that lean more toward partnership—such as Finland, Sweden, and Norway—invest more of their foreign aid in people on the other side of the globe, people to whom they are not genetically related. This reflects a recognition of some of the core principles present in many world religions—what I call the more “feminine” teachings of interconnection, caring, and love.
The problem is that we are not systematically taught caring in our education. We should be learning to care for ourselves, for others, and for our Mother Earth. But in domination systems, the aim of schooling often becomes instilling the belief that you either dominate or you are dominated.
Domination systems, like partnership systems, are self-perpetuating. They benefit from maintaining dichotomies: “We, the East, are not like the self-indulgent West,” or “We, the West, are not like the backward East.” In-group versus out-group thinking is fundamental to domination systems.
One of the significant issues I focus on in my whole-systems research is gender. There are two basic biological forms in humanity—male and female. In regressive periods, such as what we see in Afghanistan under the Taliban or in fundamentalist Iran, domination systems reinforce rigid gender stereotypes. They insist on strict rankings of male over female, denying the existence of anything in between. Such rigidity is necessary for maintaining domination.
This trains people to equate difference—starting with male versus female forms, and what is defined as “masculine” or “feminine”—with hierarchy: superior versus inferior, dominating versus dominated. That is falsely presented as “natural” or “normal.”
We must therefore look at the roots of the problem, which take us directly to gender. Neuroscience also reveals that the first five years of life are crucial. A child’s brain is still forming, and what they experience or observe in those years shapes not only how they think and feel, but also how they act later in life—even how they vote. This is why I consider two cornerstones essential: changing the way we raise children and changing the way we think about gender.
Both domination and partnership systems take us to the root causes. If a child observes in their family that so-called “women’s work” is considered less valuable, then we see how rigid gender stereotypes are reinforced. This connects directly to a third cornerstone: economics.
Caring isn’t valued. Historically, both Karl Marx and Adam Smith—reflecting the norms of their times—treated care work, starting from birth, as unpaid labour performed by women in male-controlled households. We must look at this history carefully, and also at the role of story and language in shaping our values.
I don’t have all the answers, but I know we cannot find them unless we recognize partnership as a viable alternative—how we relate to ourselves, to others, and to our Mother Earth.
Jacobsen: On the topic of stories and violence, religions contain caring and nurturing teachings. Yet many also emphasize war and histories of combat. Some of these battles may or may not have occurred historically, but they’re often given divine sanction and mythologized. We find narratives where entire peoples are ordered to be slaughtered, for example.
Eisler: Yes, you’ve touched on a crucial issue. Progressive religious leaders who want a more peaceful, equitable, and sustainable world must examine scriptures with discernment. They need to separate the “grain”—the core teachings of caring and reciprocity, such as the Golden Rule, which are present in all traditions—from the domination overlay: teachings that rank women as inferior or blame them for humanity’s ills.
And this isn’t limited to the major Abrahamic religions. In Zoroastrianism, for example, feminine figures are sometimes blamed for chaos. In Buddhism, very few holy figures are women, and historically, women have faced significant barriers to entering monasteries or rising to positions of authority.
You may recall that the Dalai Lama once joked—though I’d suggest partly in earnest—that if he were reborn, he hoped it would be as a woman, even a Western woman. He has also said that the fate of Tibet was tied to the treatment of women, suggesting a kind of karmic connection.
What matters here is urging religious leaders to sort the grain from the chaff. The vengeful, capricious deity imagery often serves to reinforce domination systems on Earth. Traditional religions frequently emphasize the time before we are born and after we die. Life in between is framed as a “veil of tears,” justified by ideas such as original sin. Even in secular science, narratives like “selfish genes” reinforce a worldview where cooperation is minimized and only in-group solidarity is seen as natural.
That’s not true. People do help those outside their group. Look at Doctors Without Borders, for example. They provide care to people with whom they share no genetic ties. However, the truth is that they’re a relatively small group. And even they sometimes fall into out-group blame and shame.
Blame and shame are integral to the arsenal of domination systems. In childhood, they force us to deny reality—because we cannot admit that the very people we depend on for life, shelter, food, and care are also causing us pain. That denial becomes a pattern. As adults, we become more susceptible to climate change denial, COVID denial, election result denial—denial in many forms.
This is why we must pay close attention to the four cornerstones: childhood and family relations, gender norms, economic values, and stories and language. Gender in particular is central because it teaches us to equate difference with superiority or inferiority. That logic extends outward to race, religion, ethnicity, and nationality. The goal is not perfection but moving societies toward the partnership side of the domination–partnership social scale. And that movement is now a matter of survival at our stage of technological development.
Domination systems rely on war and violence, and they reduce people to utilities. Women are valued for their reproductive capacity—hence, current calls from some wealthy elites for higher birth rates. Men, meanwhile, are sent to war, often drafted to die at a young age. Men don’t fare well in domination systems either, but they’re given a “substitute reward”: the sense of being “king of the castle” at home, with authority over women and children.
Unfortunately, we are not taught to connect the dots. What passes for systems thinking often ignores the majority of humanity—women and children. That is not true systems thinking.
Jacobsen: Why is mental compartmentalization key to understanding domination systems?
Eisler: Because one of the things we’re taught in domination systems is to compartmentalize. Take empathy. Empathy evolved gradually. In reptiles, offspring receive little to no care. But with mammals and birds, care of the young became essential for survival. Empathy is part of our evolutionary heritage. Yet domination systems compartmentalize it. They restrict empathy to the in-group, and even then, not to all members—for example, women may be considered inferior even within the in-group.
This isn’t about women against men or men against women. Caring is a human capacity. But we’ve been taught to equate caring with the “feminine.” That not only devalues care itself but also deprives men of part of their humanity. Men feel emotions too, and partnership systems encourage them to acknowledge and embrace those emotions instead of suppressing them. Men are allowed to express contempt and anger, but they’re discouraged from expressing softer, more caring emotions.
Jacobsen: Let’s expand this. Modern technologies have changed the discourse. People carry a war mentality online. Anonymity across borders enables them to attack one another, build echo chambers, form coalitions, and emotionally abuse people they don’t even know. It becomes an abstracted in-group/out-group dynamic—hatred directed toward strangers halfway across the world.
Eisler: To address this, we must examine the problem systematically. What is instilled in children when they are young? If we teach them to equate caring with the feminine, and the feminine with weakness, then we limit their sense of what is humanly possible. It becomes a question of consciousness—how we see ourselves and others—and that question is now existential.
Jacobsen: On health metrics, domination-oriented societies seem to live shorter lives, don’t they?
Eisler: The picture is more complicated. In some domination-oriented countries, life expectancies have increased thanks to advances in medical science—vaccines, for example, have saved millions of lives. Yet at the same time, we see resistance to science, such as vaccine denial in the United States.
In societies locked in domination, war casualties are also devastating. Take Russia today: its war has produced tremendous casualties, with men especially paying the price. Domination systems often show little regard for the value of human life.
So it’s not a simple question, but I always return to the importance of a shift in consciousness. Peace begins at home. It starts in early childhood and family life. It also requires re-examining our religious beliefs. Sorting the grain from the chaff in scripture is a vital project—lifting the teachings of care while rejecting domination overlays. But this work carries risks. Religious fanatics, who insist every word of scripture is divine and unquestionable, can respond with violence.
Jacobsen: Why is the partnership model not prevailing right now, when it would clearly help reduce violence and war?
Eisler: That’s an important question. The partnership model is not absent. It is gaining ground among specific segments of the population—even in countries like the United States, where there’s a significant regression toward domination. Look at the global women’s movement, the children’s rights movement, the anti-racism movement, the peace movement, and the economic justice movement. These are all manifestations of partnership values. But they are countered by enormous and often violent domination backlash.
Eisler: The very notion of “winning” or “losing” comes from domination systems. Partnership calls for a win–win framework, where everyone’s basic needs can be met. That’s only possible if we give up the idea that one type of person must always be on top and another underneath.
Jacobsen: How can large, complex societies make care and dignity non-optional? So, in other words, you’re talking about embedding change into institutions—making care and dignity non-optional.
Eisler: That means shifting the four cornerstones from domination to partnership. And it really has to be all four. If we reward caring—if we find ways to value it economically—then we will see much more of it. If we model partnership in families, between the two basic forms of humanity, and stop devaluing so-called “women’s work” of caring, then society as a whole will come to value it. It’s a question of values. What do we reward in families, in economics, in our culture, in our stories and language? That is what shapes the future.
Jacobsen: The end. All right, Riane, I’ll see you next week. Thank you.
Eisler: Thank you. Take care of yourself.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Identity Frames, Antisemitism, and Democratic Backsliding — An Interview With Kristen Renwick Monroe
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/18
Prof. Kristen Renwick Monroe is Chancellor’s Distinguished Professor of Political Science at UC Irvine and the founding director of the UCI Interdisciplinary Center for the Scientific Study of Ethics and Morality. A political psychologist and ethicist, she has authored influential books—including The Heart of Altruism, The Hand of Compassion, and Ethics in an Age of Terror and Genocide—that explore how identity, not just reason, shapes moral choice. Her scholarship has earned multiple APSA Best Book awards, Pulitzer and National Book Award nods, and prestigious lifetime-achievement honours.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen interviews Monroe on identity, moral choice, and antisemitism. Monroe explains how identity frames shape rescuers, bystanders, and perpetrators during the Holocaust, emphasizing that human connection counters dehumanization. She recounts life stories showing how recognition of shared humanity fosters altruism. Monroe warns of rising antisemitism and democratic backsliding, drawing parallels to Weimar Germany and critiquing Trump’s norm erosion and authoritarian tendencies. She highlights the dangers of “us versus them” mentalities and stresses the importance of dialogue programs, shared experiences, and humanizing stories as practical policies to reduce prejudice and sustain democracy.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here once again with the world-renowned political scientist and longtime mentor, Professor Kristen Renwick Monroe, a distinguished professor of political science at the University of California, Irvine. You have argued that identity frames constrain people’s experience of the morally possible. How does this lens explain the persistence of antisemitism?
Professor Kristen Renwick Monroe: I have reviewed some of your questions, and I am not sure I can answer them directly, but I will try to provide a general response. One of the things I found when I was studying the Holocaust was that identity tends to constrain the choices that everybody has. People who were rescuers of Jews were guided in their choices by how they saw themselves in relation to others. They saw themselves as connected to everyone through a shared humanity.
The bystanders—people who knew what was happening, maybe felt bad about it, but did nothing—often saw themselves as weak. They were not high on what philosophers call agency; they were not people who thought they could change the world.
Perpetrators, ironically, saw themselves as under siege. They believed they had to protect the “body politic” of the German people from supposed invaders who were trying to defile it. Their attitude toward Jews, Roma and Sinti, and Social Democrats (among others persecuted by the Nazi regime) resembled how one might view a pest invading a home: something to be eradicated.
So how does this relate to antisemitism? What strikes me is that if you see the humanity in another person, it is much more challenging to categorize them as “the other”—as someone different, threatening, subhuman, or attacking you. If you see them as people just like you, it becomes harder to harm them.
In that sense, if you see the humanity in a Jew, for example, or a Palestinian, or any group, you will be more likely to treat them better. Antisemitism, like other prejudices, classifies people as belonging to a group that is different from you. Because they seem different and threatening, you fear them and mistreat them. But when you recognize their humanity, prejudice tends to lessen—not just antisemitism, but also prejudice against Palestinians, Muslims, ethnic minorities, or people with a different skin colour. Seeing others as just like you makes it easier to treat them with decency and harder to mistreat them.
Jacobsen: You wrote about rescuers—those who perceived Jews as “people just like us.” What practices cultivate an altruistic perspective in a technology-heavy society?
Monroe: Again, I am not sure I can answer that question. I do not know if I have any special insight into a highly technological society. What I did find is that rescuers see themselves as very much like other people, and that self-perception shapes their behaviour. For example, if there is a school shooting and you do not have a child in that school, you will be upset and feel bad about it, but your response will not be the same as if you do have a child there.
You’re going to rush to the school, you’re going to try to see what is happening, and you’re likely to take further steps to prevent it from happening again in the future. And so, if you are someone who sees yourself as close to others, you are likely to be upset when people are treated poorly. It does not matter what group they are in.
We have rescuers like Oskar Springer, who was featured in the book The Hand of Compassion. He said, “I did not think it was right to mistreat Jews any more than I thought it was right to mistreat Black people in America in the 1950s when we came here.” So I think that if you feel you have ties to everybody through a common humanity, you are going to treat people better, because they are just like you.
Jacobsen: You interviewed rescuers, bystanders, and Nazi supporters. What specific dehumanization mechanisms emerged from this conversational data? This is hinging on specific dehumanization mechanisms.
Monroe: I think Otto articulated it very clearly for me. Otto saved over 100 Jews. He married a Jewish woman—he was in love with her. It was not a marriage simply to save her, although it did save her. He was eventually arrested and put into a concentration camp in Upper Silesia, which at that time had been annexed by Nazi Germany from Czechoslovakia and incorporated into the Third Reich.
He said that one day he was out walking, and there was a guard with him. A few Jews had escaped, and they were chased down and shot. Otto asked the man, who he described as slow—he said there was a lot of inbreeding in that part of the world, so perhaps the man had some developmental issues. The guard was carrying his big gun, seeing himself as the master of the universe. Otto asked him, “Did you ever have to kill anybody?” The guard said, “Yes, I had to kill three Jews once. When you get an order like that, you have to be hard. They really weren’t human anymore.”
And Otto said that was the critical factor. Once you distance yourself and dehumanize, you can do whatever you want to people, because they are no longer like you. They are someone else. They are the other. They are different, frightening people who are going to hurt you.
I think that is the root of most prejudice—that you begin to think in terms of “us versus them.” That is one of the most troubling things happening in many parts of the world today. I am not sure whether to call it populism or white Christian nationalism, but it reflects a mentality of separation: we are “us” and they are “them.” Once you do that, the process of distancing begins.
We saw this here on the campuses of the University of California, Irvine, in 2024, when protests broke out over Gaza and Israel. Some students, including Jewish students, expressed concerns about how Israel was treating Gazans. Many Jews also spoke out forcefully. At one point, the students occupied a building they were not supposed to enter. The chancellor called the police, and suddenly, there were police everywhere. Students were arrested, and some were mistreated. A couple of faculty members who were trying to help the students were slammed to the ground and mistreated as well.
I was thinking about this, and I recalled my time in graduate school at the University of Chicago in the 1970s, when anti-war issues were still very much alive and Nixon was president. A man I was very close to, Joseph Cropsey—I had never taken a course with him, but his office was next to mine and we spoke often—was one of the many academics who signed a full-page ad called Academics for Nixon.
I stormed into his office and said, “Mr. Cropsey, what is wrong with you? How could you possibly have signed this? Youcannot support Nixon—he’s horrible!” And instead of saying to me, “You’re out of line, young lady. Get out of myoffice,”—which I was, since I was calling him on the carpet—he said, “Sit down, and let me explain why I did what I did.”
He treated me as someone who was a valued member of the community, who might have misunderstood what he was saying, but who was nevertheless worth saving and worth talking with.
I thought about that in contrast with the attitude the chancellor here at Irvine had toward the students. He saw them as “the other.” They were people disrupting the peace, people who could harm the university and damage his standing. And so he took one course of action.
I believe that how you perceive people, especially in relation to yourself, has a profound influence on how you treat them. If we are interested in antisemitism, we can look at Jews—especially some of the more religious Jews whose clothing is different from what you and I wear. For example, women may wear wigs; there are practices like the mikveh; the lifestyle can look very different.
You can see these differences as threatening, or you can see them as simply interesting and distinctive. And I think howyou perceive such differences will directly affect how you treat people.
Jacobsen: You emphasize moral salience. What are the relevant metrics to see changes in moral salience toward Jews over time?
Monroe: That is an interesting question. Again, I do not like framing it just in terms of antisemitism. I think it is a broader question that applies to any group against which prejudice is directed.
Think about it: why should we care how people worship God in the privacy of their own hearts? What difference does it make to me? Why should I care if your skin is darker than mine?
You might notice I have a bandage on my nose right now from having a basal cell carcinoma removed. I have light skin. You have light skin. In our culture, light skin is often perceived as a sign of “good skin.” We are not prejudiced against people with light skin; we are prejudiced against people with dark skin. Why? What difference does it make? In some ways, people with darker skin do not face the same problems I do. Maybe their skin is superior to mine. I wish I had more pigment so I would not keep developing basal cell cancers.
So the question of why a society chooses to discriminate against one group versus another is critical. I do not think anybody really knows. For example, in ancient Egyptian society, the rulers often married their brothers and sisters to keep power within the family. We now know, genetically, that this is not the healthiest way to ensure vigorous offspring.
Today, we have laws against incest, and psychologist Jonathan Haidt has shown that people often find the idea “icky.” They are not comfortable with it. But in that society, it was acceptable. Cleopatra, for example, is believed to have married her brother at one point.
I don’t know much about Cleopatra. But the larger question of how we accord moral salience—why we assign specific differences political or moral significance—is, I think, the critical issue here. I do not think we really understand it.
It tends to be imposed by the dominant group that holds the most power. For example, Europeans, who were more advanced in terms of military technology, went into Africa, conquered territories, and took slaves. Dark skin became the justification for what they were doing—because slavery, in itself, is wrong, they needed a rationale.
Slavery has existed since antiquity, but it was not the same as the chattel slavery practiced in the United States and the British Empire. Traditionally, it was tied to war. You took prisoners of war, regardless of who they were. You might kill the king, but you would often take the queen and the subjects as slaves. That form of slavery was justified simply by military might.
If you had the power, you could dominate others, and you justified it based on whatever difference you considered relevant. In the case of European colonialism, skin colour became that marker. Europeans had lighter skin and more advanced military technology, and so dark skin was often framed as inferior to justify conquest.
Now, I do not know if that is the full explanation—I am not a scholar of slavery—but that is my best interpretation.
Jacobsen: The Koreans have the most extended continuous history of slavery of any civilization. Again, I am not a scholar on that. That is why I have conversations with experts. All right then: why are life story interviews uniquely suited to understanding antisemitism’s effects on moral choice?
Monroe: I think life stories are important because they reveal the essence of a human being. You have to see the humanity in the other person. There is a great deal of work in social psychology that demonstrates this.
For example, Daniel Bar-Tal, a distinguished Israeli scholar, wrote extensively about how people perceive “the other.” One story he recounted was of an assailant entering a school intending to kill. The teacher engaged him, looked into his eyes, and kept repeating, “You are just like us. Why do you want to do this?” Eventually, he did not carry out the killings. Establishing a human connection made violence less likely.
I had a friend in graduate school, Ben Ginsberg, whose father was a soccer player in the Soviet Union. He had played against a German player when he was in high school. Years later, as a Jew being marched along by the Nazis, he happened to be recognized by that same German. The soldier moved him to the end of the line and, when they turned a corner, told him to get out. That shared bond of soccer, remembered across years and war, was enough to save his life.
It is a small thing, and one might ask, why would that matter? But it did. That is the power of human connection. If, for some reason, you can see that others are just like you, or that you share something in common, you are less likely to mistreat them.
Life stories are the best way to convey that. They communicate who the person is, and they make you feel something about them—something that reminds you that they are, in fact, just like you.
Jacobsen: If identity, rather than abstract reason, guides moral action, which policies realistically reduce antisemitism?
Monroe: I think it comes down to humanizing stories—anything that helps you see the other person as a human being.
We had a program here for many years called the Olive Tree Initiative. The olive tree, of course, is a symbol of peace. The program brought together Arab Muslim students and Jewish students at UC Irvine. They would meet regularly—once a week or so—to talk about prejudice. Then they travelled to Israel and Palestine, visiting Muslim communities and Israeli Jewish communities. The goal was to help them see their common humanity.
It was modelled on programs in Northern Ireland, where Protestants and Catholics had conflicted for centuries. Both groups were Christian, but their religious division—Protestant versus Catholic—had fueled violence for over 500 years. In those programs, students spent a year preparing, and then they were hosted in the United States by families that modelled peaceful coexistence.
One example I recall is a Catholic girl from Northern Ireland who stayed with a couple named Bruce and Rita. Bruce was Protestant, Rita was Catholic. When they married, Bruce even offered to convert to Catholicism for her, though she never asked him to. They were not especially religious, but they lived together in peace.
The girl staying with them was baffled by two things. First, she could not understand why Bruce went to work every day. She called him a “dirty old man” because, in her experience, most men she knew were unemployed and living on government support. Second, she could not grasp how Bruce’s brothers remained Protestant while Bruce himself identified with Catholicism after marriage—and yet the family lived harmoniously without conflict. That confused her sense of identity boundaries.
The same dynamic exists elsewhere. In Rwanda, for instance, there were many marriages between Tutsis and Hutus. Their children could not easily be categorized as one or the other. In the film Hotel Rwanda, the central figure, Paul Rusesabagina, was a Hutu married to a Tutsi woman. Their relationship showed how identities can intertwine across supposed divides.
So when people are placed in situations where they see a peaceful coexistence modelled—whether Protestant and Catholic, Hutu and Tutsi, or Jewish and Muslim—it provides them with a roadmap, they begin to see that it is possible, that it is not such a big deal, and that people can, in fact, live together in peace.
That is the kind of policy that works. Structured programs that encourage dialogue and shared experiences are helpful. But it also requires an internal shift. At first, you may simply wonder: “Why are these people able to live together in peace without conflict?” Then, gradually, you recognize that it is possible for you, too.
Jacobsen: Side note: I was invited to the Rebuilding Ukraine conference. Many prominent figures were there, and one of the keynote speakers was Romeo Dallaire.
Monroe: He’s an interesting person. After the Rwandan genocide, he attempted suicide—it was so difficult for him to live with what he had witnessed. If you look at the film Hotel Rwanda, there’s a powerful and gruesome scene. The character modelled on Dallaire, played by Nick Nolte, says to Paul Rusesabagina, “You’re nothing. You’re not even human. You’reAfrican, and the Europeans don’t care about you.”
What Paul then does is have everyone call anyone they can to say goodbye and ask for help. One of those calls connects him to the head of Sabena Airlines, who tells him, “What are you talking about? They’re going to kill you.” That contact jolts action into place. It was a human connection that shifted the situation—emotional bonds, not abstract reason. That’swhat put pressure on people. It’s a powerful movie. Dallaire is a fantastic person. Yes, he is still alive.
Jacobsen: What is a common term or conceptual schema people use when they describe that moment of moral switch—whether it happens over time or in a sudden window?
Monroe: That’s an interesting question—what happens when people suddenly see.
Take the film Schindler’s List. It is shot in black and white, except for two key moments. One occurs as Oskar Schindler is riding near the cliffs in Kraków, overlooking the ghetto clearance. Amidst the chaos—people being rounded up, violence everywhere—there is a single child in a bright red coat. That splash of colour draws his eye. It becomes the moment when he perceives the humanity of the victims, when he realizes there is something he could do.
At the end of the film, after liberation by the Soviet army, the story transitions from black and white to colour. Survivors walk to Schindler’s grave and place stones upon it. Each actor is paired with the real person they portrayed, if still alive. I watched this with my son, who was twelve at the time. He had watched the entire movie without much reaction. But when he saw that final sequence, he turned to me and asked, “Is this a true story?” I said yes, and he broke down. He had endured the film, but the realization that it was true overwhelmed him.
Cognitive psychologists have noted that when a single bright azalea is placed in the middle of a beige room, your eyes are immediately drawn to it. That is what Spielberg was doing with the girl in the red coat: creating that jarring moment of recognition that pierces abstraction and forces you to see.
I think there are moments when something suddenly happens, and you see things in a different light. It’s like the paradigm you’ve been living with cracks open. Suddenly, you realize there is another way of doing things.
Those are the moments that cause people to change. It’s hard to know what triggers them—it could be any number of things, and sometimes you only understand them in retrospect.
I interviewed a Dutch woman who later became a psychoanalyst. At the time of the war, she was about 19 or 20 and training as a social worker. One day, she came out of class and saw the Gestapo seizing children from a Jewish orphanage, throwing them into a truck. Some Dutch women tried to stop them, and they too were thrown into the truck.
She said it happened so fast that she froze. She stood paralyzed, wondering what was happening, and only gradually came to realize the truth. Years later, she told me, “We all have memories of times when we should have done something, and we didn’t. Those memories burden us for the rest of our lives.” That day marked her decision to dedicate herself to helping people.
Sometimes the trigger is precisely that: a moment when you realize, I should have acted, and I didn’t. You don’t want to live with that version of yourself, so you change. These moments can come in many forms, but they all involve a sudden shift in how you see the world.
Jacobsen: Your recent work engages with democratic backsliding in the United States and, I presume, Germany. What parallels to Weimar-era dynamics matter most for understanding today’s antisemitism?
Monroe: Too many—and that is the frightening part. When I began a book project with students at the Ethics Center, I would read the day’s newspapers and think: Am I reading current events, or am I reading my research on Weimar Germany? The parallels are striking.
Weimar was a functioning democracy—fragile, young, but real. And then things began to unravel. Hitler rose to power, and small shifts accumulated into a catastrophe.
There’s now an entire literature—almost a separate field—on how democracies die. The patterns are remarkably consistent. Strongmen—whether autocrats or would-be dictators—tend to:
- Attack the press, undermining independent journalism (something Trump has explicitly done).
- Stack the courts with loyalists.
- Divide society into “us versus them.”
- Legitimize conduct that previously would have been unthinkable in public life.
Not long ago, it would have been impossible to imagine a presidential candidate in the United States telling a rally crowd to “throw the bum out” or calling an opponent a “whore.” That erosion of norms is precisely the kind of cultural shift that opens the door to antisemitism and other forms of dehumanization. Trump once called Kamala Harris a whore. He bragged about grabbing women “by the pussy.” This is a coarsening of public discourse to its lowest level.
There is also a total disregard for truth. Trump simply invents things without concern for accuracy. Look at Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s rhetoric on vaccines—there is no respect for evidence. The scientific data on vaccines is overwhelming, just as it is on climate change. It is not that climate scientists are evenly divided. Roughly 99 percent agree that anthropogenic climate change is happening. Yet Trump dismisses this consensus and substitutes his own narrative.
These are classic warning signs of authoritarianism. Dictators and strongmen constantly erode truth first, because once truth is gone, power can be anything they declare it to be.
The parallels to Weimar are, again, too many. And the most troubling part, to me, is that Americans often assume, “Once Trump is gone, things will return to normal.” That will not happen.
There is a powerful line in the German television series Line of Separation, which dramatizes how norms collapse in stages. We have already shifted our baseline of what counts as normal political behaviour.
Think about Mitt Romney. He faced public backlash for strapping his dog to the roof of his car—a minor lapse compared to today’s political outrages. Romney was, by all accounts, a fundamentally decent person, yet he was sharply criticized. Trump, by contrast, has committed countless violations of decency and democratic norms, and instead of being universally condemned, he continues to command loyalty.
Miles Taylor, the former DHS official who wrote the anonymous New York Times op-ed in September 2018 (“I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration”), later said something chilling: the worst thing is not what Trump did to democracy, but what he enabled Americans to do to themselves.
That, I think, is the tragedy. The American public has become overwhelmed. It is like a child running through a house, knocking over everything in sight—by the time you clean up one mess in the living room, the child is already destroying the kitchen. The pace and chaos leave people exhausted, disoriented, and unable to keep up.
There were “grown-ups in the room” trying to control Trump. The worst thing is not what he did to democracy, but what he allowed us to do to ourselves.
That is the tragedy: the American public is overwhelmed. There is so much chaos, so much scattershot action. It is like a child running through a house, knocking things over—by the time you clean up the mess in the living room, the child is already tearing apart the kitchen. People cannot keep up.
We don’t know where to turn. He has “flooded the zone.” And that is not accidental—it is a deliberate strategy articulated by Steve Bannon. Trump himself may not be fully aware of the tactic; he often lacks knowledge of the history or the tools he’s using. For example, someone had to explain to him the War Powers Act of 1973, and he had no idea what it was. He certainly did not know the Latin concept of comitas (reciprocal respect among nations). Trump is not well-educated, despite his claims about attending Penn. Reports suggest he even paid others to take his exams.
The point is that he has created such an overwhelming stream of crises that the opposition cannot decide where to focus. And unless they figure this out before the 2026 elections—if they go in thinking, “All we have to do is beat Trump”—they will be stunned.
Because Trump has supporters who genuinely like what he is doing, I have good friends who say, “At least he’s doing something.” One of my own sons once supported Bernie Sanders, but after Sanders lost, he voted for Trump because he felt the Democrats had abandoned the working class. It was his way of punishing them. Now he will not even speak to meabout politics, and maybe about other things as well. That estrangement is painful.
But the bigger picture is this: we are in a dangerous situation. More than 70 million people voted for Trump. That was not an accident or a fluke. It represents a broad current in American society. And when you look at what’s happening in states like Florida—rolling back vaccines, restricting abortion rights—you see the downstream effects.
Republican-controlled states are doing all kinds of things Trump wants them to do. Hardly anyone in the party is challenging him. A few have tried, but they’ve been driven out.
One of my former interns, now at Stanford, worked on the House Oversight Committee this past summer. He told me that even Republican members who personally dislike Trump admit they call him whenever they face political trouble. A senator from Missouri said as much: Trump will pick up the phone and threaten, “I’ll primary you from the right.” That’sall it takes—people fall into line.
Look at Susan Collins. She claims to disapprove of Trump, but she consistently votes with him. Jacobsen: And then there’s J.D. Vance, now Trump’s vice president. Vance once called Trump “America’s Hitler.” Now he’s number two.
Monroe: Vance is, in my view, a total opportunist. At first, he seemed cynical, but now he appears to be a true believer. He has embraced white Christian nationalism. That’s striking because his wife is not white—she’s Indian-American, a brilliant woman who graduated from Yale Law and clerked for two U.S. Supreme Court justices. You would think that kind of background would temper such ideology. Instead, they’re pushing a vision that echoes the old Nazi slogan of “Kinder, Küche, Kirche”—children, kitchen, and church. In plain terms: women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen.
It’s strange, but many people see this as “traditional” and comforting. Margaret Atwood, in The Handmaid’s Tale, captured this paradox perfectly. When she was asked about the older women in her story who enforce patriarchal rules, she explained that even enforcers gain a measure of power they would not otherwise have in a repressive system. So, in practice, it becomes a “for thee, not for me” dynamic. They enforce oppression but carve out authority for themselves within it.
Monroe: The Handmaid’s Tale is frightening to read now. It was always a frightening book, but today it feels closer to reality.
Jacobsen: Margaret Atwood once joked, “We didn’t change the picture, we changed the frame.” And that’s the point—if you shift the frame, the story itself changes.
Monroe: That is what worries me most: they are changing what counts as usual. Take this idea that America could annex Canada as the 51st state. Where does that come from? Yet some people like it. They say, “That’s a good idea, the Canadians would be happy.”
Jacobsen: There’s a kind of imperial fantasy at work: retract U.S. influence abroad while extending it across the Americas, creating a “Gulf of America.” It’s a bizarre and illegitimate notion, but you can see how it fits into a Trumpian legacy of empire.
Jacobsen: Thank you very much for the opportunity and your time again, Kristen.
Monroe: Good seeing you—good to talk with you.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/17
Kahlila Robinson, PhD, is a psychologist in private practice in New York City with expertise in child, family, and parent mental health. She earned her doctorate from the Graduate Center, City University of New York, and has extensive experience in hospitals, clinics, and early childhood programs, including serving as Director of Parent Mental Health for a nationally recognized early intervention program in the Bronx. Dr. Robinson also supervises graduate students at City College. Her work focuses on supporting children, parents, and adults with relational trauma while advocating for accessible, high-quality mental health services for underserved populations. Robinson emphasizes children’s need for secure attachment, unconditional love, and supportive structure. She highlights the role of play, creativity, and self-efficacy in resilience, while dispelling myths about self-regulation. Early interventions, parental attunement, and community support are vital in fostering healthy development and preventing long-term mental health challenges. With Sarah Gerstenzang, Kahlila Robinson, Ph.D. is the author of The Self-Regulation Workbook for Children Ages 5 to 8 (Ulysses Press, April 2025).
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What are the most fundamental psychological needs of children?
Dr. Kahlila Robinson: Children need to feel the consistent, reliable presence of a safe and caring adult. Research shows that we need at least one securely attached relationship to support normal development.
Jacobsen: How can caregivers help nurture emotional resilience?
Robinson: Through delighting in children and allowing them to feel unconditionally loved, and by offering them opportunities to develop self-efficacy (believing in their own ability to achieve goals), strengthening their independent adaptive skills, and giving them a perceived sense of control.
Jacobsen: What role does consistent structure and routine play?
Robinson: Structure and routine helps kids know what to expect, which is an incredibly helpful feeling to have in a big world.
Jacobsen: What are the biggest misconceptions about children’s needs?
Robinson: Probably that children should be able to calm themselves down without sufficient adult help.
Jacobsen: How can early interventions prevent long-term mental health challenges?
Robinson: If a child has a healthy attachment relationship, one that is safe, caring and reliable, between the ages of 0-3, it sets the stage for long-term healthy brain development, emotional functioning and relational functioning. But parents can also become better at their parenting – more tuned in and connected – helping their children at any age.
Jacobsen: What signs indicate a child is struggling emotionally?
Robinson: It can vary widely and it is important to be attuned to the child to notice their stress responses. Children can both “externalize” negative feelings by acting out and being difficult to bond with, and “internalize” their negative feelings or stress by becoming withdrawn or inhibited in some way. Children can show regressions in their normal functioning when under stress, including having more difficulty with separation, limits, routines and even their own independent skills. Focusing on whether kids can get to school, sleep, and eat normally are good indicators of whether they are doing ok or struggling.
Jacobsen: How important are creativity and unstructured time for mental health?
Robinson: They are very important, especially in the form of play and playful connection between parent and child.
Jacobsen: What can schools and communities do to support strong mental health in children in underserved populations?
Robinson: Offer workshops to parents on how to co-regulate and play with children. Offer parent mental health support including resources for therapy. Have strong afterschool programs with arts and sports!
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Dr. Robinson.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen (w/ Coalition)
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/16
The Templeton Foundation awarded its 2025 Prize to Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople (Dimitrios Archontonis) in spite of the Patriarch’s silence on clergy sexual abuse in Orthodoxy, a group of survivors and advocates say.
In individual letters sent to the foundation over the past six months, members of the group acknowledged that the Patriarch earned recognition for his work on environmental issues, a long-term focus of the “first among equals” leader in Eastern Orthodox Christianity. However, they explained, the Patriarch’s silence on abuse makes his prestigious John Templeton Prize win painful for survivors — especially those who have approached him directly about their experiences.
“I have repeatedly written to Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew — as the highest spiritual authority in the Orthodox Church — imploring him to acknowledge and respond to the suffering of the victims and take action,” Bojan Jovanović, General Secretary of the Union of Christians of Croatia, wrote to the Foundation. “To this day, no response has ever been received.”
“Every institution that claims moral leadership must prove it where it matters most: protecting people,” Sally Zakhari, Executive Director of Coptic Survivor, said in her letter. “There is no lasting climate justice without justice for survivors—safety is the first duty.”
Members of the group began privately writing leadership of the foundation back in April, when the Ecumenical Patriarch was announced as the 2025 recipient of the John Templeton Prize. The letters, discussed a range of experience from survivors of abuse and their advocates, and noted repeated attempts to get the Ecumenical Patriarch to publicly address clergy-perpetrated sexual abuse in the church. Collectively they sought acknowledgement from the foundation that its lauding of the Patriarch was ill-advised.
Sinners and saints
Such an acknowledgement by the Templeton Foundation is not without precedent, precisely because previous laureates have proved problematic. While the likes of Francis Collins and Jane Goodall grace the list of previous winners, others have been found wanting — including some associated with notorious misconduct. Past recipients implicated in sexual abuse include Jean Vanier (2015), founder of L’Arche and former Dominican priest and evolutionary biologist Francisco Ayala (2010). A report commissioned by L’Arche, published in the year after Vanier’s death, concluded that Vanier had sexually abused and manipulated six women over a course of decades, among them his assistants and nuns. Templeton has since amended its website to note that the organization was “appalled and saddened” by the findings. The foundation similarly noted that Ayala had faced sexual harassment accusations.
“There can be no true climate justice without social justice. The environment includes human beings,” neuroscientist and Prosopon Healing Co-Founder Hermina Nedelescu says of the group’s efforts. “It is deeply troubling that Patriarch Bartholomew is celebrated for his environmental leadership while disregarding the men, women and children who experience clergy-perpetrated sexual abuse and endure trauma under his spiritual authority.”
Public information about abuse in Orthodoxy has been compiled by Prosopon Healing. This database is modeled after the ‘Academic Sexual Misconduct Database’ and builds on the work of an earlier site, Pokrov.org. “We are primarily a research organization, examining the breadth and depth of clergy abuse within the Orthodox churches and the factors that can lead to abuses,” Katherine Archer, Executive Director of Prosopon Healing, explained, “However, our work also involves speaking to the numerous survivors who reach out to us.”
Prosopon Healing provides evidence-based research, resources and support for those affected, but the picture remains incomplete. To our knowledge, no Orthodox jurisdiction publishes concrete information on clergy abuse. By contrast, most Roman Catholic dioceses in America have done so.
Melanie Sakoda, President of the Board of Directors of Coptic Survivor and co-founder of Pokrov.org, shared these concerns in her letter to the foundation. “I believe awarding the Templeton Prize to a leader who has failed to speak out on this crucial issue was extremely short-sighted of the Foundation. To me, it calls into question Templeton’s moral credibility when it ignores the plight of victims who are still waiting to receive both help and justice.”
The tension that can erupt when a spiritual leader is lauded for external social justice work while failing to address injustice within the church is not unknown in the Christian world. In fact, in its press release about the Ecumenical Patriarch’s receipt of the award, the foundation noted that the Ecumenical Patriarch had collaborated with Pope Francis and former Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby on a first joint message for the protection of creation. Last year, Welby was forced to resign from his position as leader of the Church of England after a significant scandal emerged regarding his handling of grievous abuse complaints.
An opportunity for reform
The Patriarch’s authority to order reforms across the Orthodox world is limited. Orthodox jurisdictions have more self-governance than Roman Catholic dioceses. However, the group said, he could begin public discussion and urge accountability within Orthodoxy; abuse should be discussed and stopped.
One step towards stopping abuse, according to the group, would involve making the extent of abuse in Orthodoxy more widely known and understood. Many Orthodox faithful deny that problems with clergy abusing both children and adults exist. For example, churchgoers often cite the fact that clerics marry, unaware that most child sexual abuse is committed by men in relationships with adult women, such as married clergymen.
Support from the Ecumenical Patriarch, rather than silence, could help complete this picture, the group explained. “It is shameful that Patriarch Bartholomew has used his voice to champion environmental issues, where his power is limited, but has remained silent on clergy sexual abuse within Orthodoxy—where his views could be a beacon for reform,” Sakoda wrote.
Together, the advocates and survivors urge the Ecumenical Patriarch to finally speak out on abuse, to implement a safe venue for reporting and independently investigating abuse, and to increase transparent accountability.
The group acknowledges that a 2020 document developed by a special commission of Orthodox scholars, appointed by Patriarch Bartholomew, gave a nod to the issue of sexual abuse in Orthodox communities. However, that report contains no concrete acknowledgement of clergy-perpetrated sexual abuse, and totally ignored the plight of those abused as adults.
Moreover, in addition to this complaint regarding his silence, the survivors and advocates also know he ignored appeals from John Metsopoulos, Dr. Nedelescu’s husband, Kevin Hunt, and, as mentioned earlier, Bojan Jovanović.
Therefore, they renew their calls for the Templeton Foundation to acknowledge the suffering experienced by Orthodox survivors, stated eloquently in a letter sent by an anonymous survivor to the foundation in recent months. “I do not ask for vengeance. I ask for recognition. By listening to survivors, the John Templeton Foundation has the opportunity to send a powerful message: that true greatness includes honesty, justice, and protection of the vulnerable.”
Media Contacts:
Katherine Archer, Executive Director, Prosopon Healing: KatherineArcher@proton.me
Hermina Nedelescu, Ph.D. Neuroscientist, theologian, Co-Founder, Prosopon Healing: hermina.advocacy@proton.me
Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Independent Journalist: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com
Bojan Jovanović, General Secretary, Union of Christians of Croatia: jovanovicbojan711@gmail.com
Melanie Sakoda, President of the Board of Directors, Coptic Survivor: melanie.sakoda@gmail.com, 925-708-6175
Sally Zakhari, Executive Director, Coptic Survivor: copticsurvivor@gmail.com, 407-758-4874
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/16
Oleksandr Kalitenko is a legal advisor at Transparency International Ukraine and a specialist in whistleblower protection, conflicts of interest, and anticorruption policy. Since 2014, he has contributed to Ukraine’s reform agenda, analyzing the National Agency on Corruption Prevention and advising on safeguards and secure reporting. Previously, he researched whistleblower protections across all EU member states with a human-rights focus, drafting recommendations for Transparency International Latvia and a prime minister-led expert group, supported by an EU grant. He writes, speaks, and trains on practical whistleblowing, helping align Ukrainian practice with European standards and strengthen institutional resilience during wartime through evidence-based legal reforms.
In this interview with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Oleksandr Kalitenko is a leading expert on anticorruption policy and whistleblower protection in Ukraine. With years of experience analyzing governance reforms, legal frameworks, and transparency initiatives, Kalitenko provides critical insights into how whistleblowing functions in practice under Ukrainian law. He has collaborated with civil society, public institutions, and international organizations to enhance accountability mechanisms and protect those who expose corruption. His expertise covers the challenges of secure reporting, protections against retaliation, and the risks whistleblowers face in high-stakes environments such as wartime Ukraine. Kalitenko’s work contributes to shaping a more transparent, resilient, and democratic society.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Thank you again for taking part in a second interview. When we refer to individuals who speak out about corruption or similar issues, they are typically called whistleblowers. I am unsure if there are different casual terms used in various contexts, but who is considered a whistleblower in Ukraine today? Who falls under that definition?
Oleksandr Kalitenko: Under Ukrainian law, a whistleblower is an individual who, believing the information to be reliable, reports possible facts of corruption or corruption-related offences committed by another person. This applies when the information became known to the person in connection with their labour, professional, economic, public, or scientific activities, their service or studies, or their participation in procedures provided for by law that are mandatory for the commencement of such activities, service, or training. In short, whistleblowers must be reasonably confident in the truthfulness and reliability of the information they disclose.
It is important to note that Ukraine’s whistleblowing regime is explicitly focused on corruption (there is no separate, general whistleblowing law that covers all types of wrongdoing). This narrower scope is often contrasted with broader European approaches.
As for protections, the law provides that a whistleblower’s rights and guarantees apply from the moment a report is submitted, not after a later legal determination of whether the facts qualify as a corruption offence. Later reclassification of a case by law enforcement does not retroactively erase the fact that a report was made or the protections associated with reporting; however, eligibility for a monetary reward arises only if a court issues a conviction in a qualifying corruption case.
Regarding rewards, Ukrainian law allows a whistleblower to receive 10% of the value of the corruption subject matter or damages recovered for the state (capped at a minimum of three thousand minimum wages at the time of the offence), payable after a guilty verdict. Recent cases have confirmed the practical payment of such awards.
It is also important to distinguish between anticorruption whistleblowers and people engaged in confidential cooperation with law enforcement (e.g., informants or “agents”) under criminal-procedure rules. These are distinct legal concepts with varying rights and regimes, and Ukrainian scholars and institutions have highlighted inconsistencies between the criminal-procedure terminology and the anticorruption law’s definition. Work is ongoing to harmonize these frameworks; the existence of confidential cooperation does not, by itself, make someone a whistleblower under the anticorruption law.
Jacobsen: Now, if someone witnesses corruption in the workplace, what is the safest first step?
Kalitenko: Preparation. You should build your case carefully and, if possible, consult a lawyer—preferably one with experience in law enforcement. A lawyer can help you understand the real situation, because not everything that feels like corruption in the mind of an individual qualifies as corruption under the law. Ukraine has a precise legal definition of corruption, and that distinction can make a significant difference.
An individual should also consider the possible impact of whistleblowing on their career, health, and social status. They should reflect on whether there is anything in their past that could be used against them—such as unlawful actions or procedural violations. It is also important to gather strong evidence: facts that can convince judges, law enforcement bodies, and others of the truth of your statements.
Equally important is psychological preparation. A whistleblower should be ready to testify in court, allocate the necessary time and emotional resources, and anticipate possible rejection by colleagues or attempts by wrongdoers to discredit them. Understanding relevant case law can also help in evaluating the prospects of a case.
One should not disclose sensitive information to outsiders prematurely, nor threaten exposure, provoke scandals at work, or post about the case on social media. Such actions can backfire, leading to persecution or dismissal even before a formal report is filed. Otherwise, it may come down to your word against the perpetrator’s. The safest first step remains preparation and developing a strategy.
Jacobsen: How can a whistleblower report externally, internally, or anonymously?
Kalitenko: Ukrainian law allows whistleblowers to report internally, externally, or anonymously.
- Internal channels include secure methods—often allowing anonymity—for reporting to the head, authorized department, or designated compliance officer of the institution or enterprise where the whistleblower works, serves, or studies. Internal reports may also be directed to a higher-level body responsible for overseeing anticorruption compliance in subordinate organizations.
- External channels include reports made outside the whistleblower’s workplace. These may be submitted to journalists, NGOs, trade unions, or other civil society organizations, provided the information concerns corruption. Reports may also be made to authorized public bodies, such as the National Police, the Prosecutor’s Office, the National Anticorruption Bureau (NABU), the State Bureau of Investigations, or the National Agency for the Prevention of Corruption (NACP)..
In practice, the law limits the definition of “regular channels” to these designated institutions. This means whistleblowers currently cannot, for example, submit reports directly to a Verkhovna Rada committee or a temporary investigative commission of Parliament, as these are not formally recognized reporting channels.
Whistleblowers are not currently able to report to the Anti-Monopoly Committee or the Accounting Chamber. Therefore, it would be necessary to extend the definition of “regular reporting channels” to include public authorities whose mandate covers the issues to which the information relates.
Anonymous reports on possible facts of corruption or corruption-related offences must be considered if they contain information about a specific person and verifiable factual data. Such reports may be submitted anonymously through both internal and regular channels.
Jacobsen: What about concrete protections against retaliation that work for whistleblowers? Moreover, on the other side of the question, which protections exist in the law but do not work effectively in practice?
Kalitenko: Ukrainian law provides many protections for whistleblowers, but not all of them function effectively in practice. Some face barriers to proper implementation.
- Labour guarantees: The NACP can issue a mandatory order (a precept) requiring the reinstatement of a whistleblower who was unlawfully dismissed. These protections are generally adequate, and whistleblowers can also obtain compensation through the courts for lost wages during dismissal. However, problems remain. Even after winning a reinstatement order, some employees may still face renewed dismissal or be blocked from returning to their positions.
- Compensation for damages: Court-ordered compensation for lost salaries during unlawful dismissal has proven to be a reliable approach.
- Free legal aid: In practice, this state guarantee is weak. Whistleblowing cases are legally complex, but the system provides only limited attorney hours under pro bono arrangements, which are often insufficient for proper representation in court.
- Civil society initiatives: NGOs supported by external donors—such as Labour Initiatives (Trudovi Initsiatyvy)—have been more successful in practice. They have provided professional protection and legal representation for whistleblowers, even winning reinstatement cases in court.
- NACP representation in court: While the NACP can represent whistleblowers as a third party, results have been mixed. Some cases are lost, and it is not easy to analyze the reasons. The NACP does not share detailed data, citing the need to protect the identities of whistleblowers, which limits broader evaluation.
Overall, it is hard to assess with certainty which guarantees consistently succeed or fail. Outcomes may be affected by the mistakes of whistleblowers, the NACP, judges, or by gaps in the law itself. These gaps require future legislative improvement.
Jacobsen: What is the core evidence a whistleblower should collect before they file any report?
Kalitenko: Reporting corruption without any evidence may be treated as damaging to someone’s honour, dignity, or business reputation, and it can expose a whistleblower to a defamation lawsuit. Knowingly filing a false report of a crime can also result in criminal liability. Therefore, a whistleblower must ensure that the alleged fact of corruption is adequately documented.
This could include, for example, an audio recording of a bribe being demanded. It is often better to use a device other than a regular smartphone, as the sound quality from a concealed phone may be poor. The recording should ideally capture details such as the purpose of the bribe, the exact amount, and the payment procedure. If the bribe taker writes the amount on paper, the whistleblower can state the figure aloud to confirm it is recorded.
However, the whistleblower must be conscientious not to appear as if they are taking the initiative in the conversation, as this could be interpreted as provoking the bribe. Instead, they should clarify ambiguous hints or improper requests without suggesting or offering the bribe themselves.
A video recording may also be helpful. If an intermediary is involved, the whistleblower should attempt to confirm, on record, the intermediary’s authority and connection to the bribe taker. Throughout, they should watch their language, avoid signalling eagerness to pay, and avoid blunt refusals. For instance, they could politely say they need to consult with a spouse or supervisor, or that they currently lack the necessary funds. The goal is to give the bribe taker space to reveal as much incriminating information as possible.
That said, Ukrainian legal practice is inconsistent regarding the admissibility of such evidence. The Constitutional Court of Ukraine ruled in 2011 that a recording obtained intentionally without the consent of participants may not be admissible. However, if a recording comes from a device like a 24/7 CCTV camera, it could be considered valid evidence. Courts and investigators have treated similar cases differently in practice.
The safest course of action is to report directly to the law enforcement authorities. Authorities can provide instructions on how to collect evidence in a lawful manner. They may supply specialized equipment and mark banknotes for controlled handovers. Such marked money is later seized as material evidence and returned to the whistleblower after court proceedings.
Finally, whistleblowers should only collect evidence that they have legal access to within the scope of their official duties. This reduces the risk that the evidence will be excluded or that they will face liability themselves.
Whistleblowers should not engage in unlawful activities such as obtaining secret passwords, hacking databases, or similar actions. The basic elements of valid evidence are standard: a description of the event, dates, places, names of officials, as well as documents, letters, photos, or audio that can be independently verified.
It is advisable to submit documents that are accessible to other employees, because providing materials available only to you may expose your identity. Whistleblowers should also ensure they cannot be identified by their writing style, the nature of the information, or unique facts that only they would know.
For digital security, reports can be submitted using public Wi-Fi networks (not corporate ones) and with a VPN. Ideally, this should be done outside the home—for example, from a café or station—while leaving your personal phone at home to reduce the chance of tracking. At the same time, it is important to avoid areas where CCTV cameras might record you sending or receiving the information.
Jacobsen: Do monetary rewards help people come forward? What other incentive structures exist? Could some incentives encourage false reports?
Kalitenko: Rewards in Ukraine remain a problematic issue. By law, whistleblowers may receive 10% of the bribe amount or damages prevented/recovered for the state, capped at a minimum of three thousand times the minimum wage. In practice, however, this provision creates risks of abuse, since the percentage can be calculated from the notional value of a bribe rather than actual recovered funds.
Experiences in other countries also suggest that financial incentives are not the primary motivation for many whistleblowers. The driving force is often a sense of justice, a zero-tolerance approach to corruption, and a rejection of corrupt practices. Whistleblowers are typically aware that monetary rewards cannot compensate for the career setbacks, reputational harm, or personal risks they may face.
At the same time, rewards can create risks of manipulation, particularly in Ukraine, where a post-Soviet culture of bribery and provocation persists. There is even a risk of hidden cooperation between a potential whistleblower and corrupt law enforcement officials to stage situations for financial gain.
Excessive emphasis on money can also be counterproductive within organizations. It may be perceived as “paid denunciation” rather than genuine reporting, which undermines credibility. Other incentives—such as compensation for damages, protection from retaliation, and a cultural shift toward respecting whistleblowers—are equally, if not more, important motivators than financial rewards.
Jacobsen: Let us say you are dealing with small organizations. Some may be so small that they are advocacy groups. Others are just starting but have big ambitions. Still others may team up with larger organizations or form networks of smaller groups to build channels for reporting. How can small organizations create trusted reporting channels in such circumstances?
Kalitenko: If the Unified Whistleblower Reporting Portal of the NACP functioned reliably, I recommend using it as the primary channel. That was the original purpose of the portal—to avoid a “zoo” of different reporting systems with varying levels of protection.
Unfortunately, the portal administered by the NACP does not yet guarantee complete anonymity and confidentiality. For example, reports may be visible to the head of an organization through an “archive” button, and the system lacks advanced security features such as a Tor version. There have also been technical glitches that could be exploited to compromise whistleblower protection. The NACP itself acknowledges Portal’s shortcomings, noting that, like much of Ukraine’s public sector, it struggles to recruit qualified IT specialists and cannot achieve modernization to international best standards on its own.
Given this reality, small organizations have a few practical options:
- Outsourcing: They can outsource the processing of reports to independent structures, such as law firms or individual lawyers. This helps ensure reports are not filtered through managers who may be implicated. A subscription-based legal service model can be effective, as it avoids drawing attention when a report is filed. If payment occurs only after a whistleblower submits a report, management might immediately suspect who filed it.
- Internal culture and training: Beyond technical channels, small organizations should prioritize building a culture of respect for whistleblowers. Staff should be trained to understand reporting procedures and the protections available.
- Governance options: Larger entities may establish supervisory or advisory boards to handle reports. For small organizations, however, this can be too burdensome or impractical. It is not appropriate for whistleblower information to be sent directly to the head of the organization, as this creates conflicts of interest and undermines trust.
- Internal policies: Even small organizations should have a written policy for whistleblowing. This should define what facts must be reported, to whom, within what timeframe, and what rights and guarantees apply. It should also outline procedures for appeals and specify the technical means of reporting.
In practice, some traditional mechanisms like hotlines or physical “suggestion boxes” do not function effectively. The emphasis should instead be on secure digital solutions and independent handling of reports.
Traditional so-called “anonymous reporting” methods—like leaving a letter in a box in the corridor—do not work in practice. They fail to create trust in the system. In small organizations, setting up a box or even an internal hotline often results in zero reports.
A better option is email, but it should be used securely. Employees should be instructed to send reports via Tor or a VPN, and the reporting address should be created on a secure and reliable service, such as Proton Mail. These instructions must be written into the organization’s whistleblowing policy.
That policy should not only define reporting procedures but also foster a corporate culture that respects whistleblowers. Even small organizations should conduct training to ensure employees understand how to report incidents and how their rights will be protected. Building such a culture is difficult, but it is achievable.
Jacobsen: What about disclosures involving state secrets, especially during wartime, when risks around reporting are higher?
Kalitenko: This issue is not regulated by the EU Whistleblower Directive. The Directive does not explicitly address the disclosure of restricted information, including state secrets, but leaves such regulation to the discretion of EU member states. It does, however, guarantee minimum standards—such as the whistleblower’s right to choose whether to report internally or externally. Ukraine, as an EU candidate state, is expected to adopt this Directive as part of aligning with the EU acquis.
In Ukraine, the absence of specialized reporting channels for state secrets creates a legal trap. Whistleblowers risk prosecution for disclosing restricted information, even when acting in the public interest. Another issue is that only individuals with the appropriate clearance may access state secret materials. Currently, new employees are not informed about who in their organization has such clearance and thus could lawfully receive a report.
Ukraine also lacks a military ombudsman law, which could serve as a safe reporting channel for defence-related whistleblowing. Furthermore, the Criminal Code of Ukraine does not protect whistleblowers who disclose socially necessary information involving restricted access.
By contrast, the Law of Ukraine on Information (Articles 30 and 29) and the Law on Access to Public Information (Article 11) contain guarantees: they exempt individuals from liability when disclosing socially necessary information with restricted access, provided a court recognizes that the disclosure served the public interest or related to an offence. However, this protection is not consistently mirrored in the Criminal Code, which leaves whistleblowers vulnerable despite protections on paper.
The final point I would like to mention is that the Criminal Code of Ukraine already provides an exemption from liability for disclosing commercial or banking secrets when it is deemed socially necessary. This guarantee should be expanded to cover state secrets as well. However, that would require political will in Parliament to adopt legislation creating special channels for whistleblowers dealing with classified information. Without such legal reform, there will be no progress.
Jacobsen: What are common mistakes made by whistleblowers? This seems particularly important, since mistakes can be costly.
Kalitenko: From practice—including our whistleblower support projects within Transparency International Ukraine—I can identify several recurring mistakes:
- Confusing roles: Whistleblowers sometimes confuse themselves with activists, and activists sometimes confuse themselves with whistleblowers. Activists can also face persecution, but they are not formally protected under the law. For example, if someone is fighting against a mayor through protests, that is activism—not whistleblowing. The distinction is often difficult for individuals to understand.
- Using the wrong reporting channel: Some individuals select the incorrect channel for their report, which delays investigations and weakens protections.
- Making vague or unverified claims: General accusations, such as “everyone in the prosecutor’s office is stealing money,” without specific names, dates, or facts, are ineffective and reduce the chance of protection.
- Incorrect evidence handling: Some whistleblowers rely on unreliable methods, such as creating an email account under a false name, believing that it will protect them. In reality, every internet connection has an IP address that can be traced. If someone does use a separate anonymous email, they must ensure that their username, password, and details reveal nothing personal. They should avoid opening attachments, visiting social media with trackers, or checking their real mailbox while logged into the anonymous one. The anonymous mailbox should never be reused for other services.
- Metadata leaks: Documents can contain metadata, such as the time, date, location, or author information, that may reveal the whistleblower’s identity. Such metadata should be deleted manually or with special software, and documents should be converted to PDF format, which strips most metadata present in Word (.docx) files.
- Weak digital security: Whistleblowers sometimes send reports from computers infected with malware or outdated systems. It is essential to use updated antivirus software, patched operating systems, and secure networks.
- Over-reporting: Some whistleblowers send the same information to dozens of agencies, journalists, and NGOs simultaneously. This creates “noise” and can make the report look like spam. It may also lead to conflicting investigations or slow down proceedings. Reporting everywhere at once can damage credibility and effectiveness.
- Delays due to misdirection: Submitting a report to the wrong body can waste critical time. During delays, employers may spread rumours or take retaliatory action, such as dismissal, before protections are triggered.
In short, effective whistleblowing requires precision, discipline, and careful planning—both in terms of legal channels and digital hygiene.
Once you become a whistleblower, you may already have the attention of your boss or colleagues. Some people make the mistake of threatening their colleagues or superiors—for example, saying, “I will expose you,” or creating a scandal, or even posting prematurely on social media platforms like X, Facebook, or Instagram.
Such actions rarely lead to sanctions against bribe-takers. Instead, they make wrongdoers more cautious, which weakens the chance of gathering objective evidence. If you want to see perpetrators held accountable legally, you must cooperate with the police and prosecutors, not with friends, relatives, or social media followers.
Another common mistake is disclosing to family or close friends that you are a whistleblower. Even well-meaning relatives might accidentally reveal your status. Only the prosecutor, police officer, or relevant law enforcement official should know you are a whistleblower. Do not “show off” to friends or loved ones about it. These mistakes compromise safety and the investigation.
Jacobsen: What public metrics demonstrate that the whistleblower system is working?
Kalitenko: The European Commission currently points to the percentage of organizations connected to the NACP’s Unified Whistleblower Portal as the key public metric. Currently, only about 10% of the expected 90,000 organizations—roughly 9,000—are connected. However, this is not a meaningful measure. A mere connection to the portal does not prove the quality of investigations or that corruption risks are being effectively eliminated.
Better metrics would include:
- Follow-up inspections: Whether inspections are actually conducted after a report is submitted.
- Elimination of risks: More importantly, whether violations or their root causes are effectively addressed and eliminated. For example, if customs officers are known to demand bribes at the border, ensuring body cameras are always turned on could serve as a prevention mechanism.
- Systemic change: Success should not only be measured by whistleblowers winning cases in court, but also by environmental changes that reduce corruption risks in practice.
- Protection outcomes: If individuals who submit reports via the NACP portal face pressure or dismissal, this suggests that confidentiality and anonymity are not secure, and that the portal is leaking sensitive information.
- Court statistics: Another valuable metric would be data on court disputes involving whistleblowers. Unfortunately, although the NACP collects such information, it does not currently provide full public access, citing confidentiality concerns. This prevents NGOs and society from independently assessing the effectiveness of the legal protection mechanisms.
So, meaningful metrics should go beyond portal enrollment and instead track real-world changes, protections, and outcomes.
As a result, without systemic changes to the law and the introduction of effective mechanisms to address the portal’s issues, the current model for working with whistleblowers will remain vulnerable and unable to fully guarantee safety and effectiveness. That is the main conclusion of everything I have said.
Jacobsen: All right, Oleksandr, thank you very much for your time today.
Kalitenko: Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak and for the invitation to this interview. It is precious to me, and I value it greatly. Thank you for your work and your contribution.
Jacobsen: Excellent, thank you. Take care.
Kalitenko: Bye.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/15
Rich Pleeth is the CEO and Co-Founder of Finmile, an AI logistics SaaS company building the Finmile OS, a delivery intelligence platform optimizing routes, costs, and operations for carriers and retailers worldwide. A serial entrepreneur with extensive experience in scaling technology ventures, Rich has been at the forefront of AI-native business models that prioritize agility and efficiency. At Finmile, he has championed AI-driven automation across product development, operations, and customer support, making the company leaner and more resilient. With thirty percent of Finmile’s code already AI-written, Rich advocates for rethinking organizational structures, skill sets, and workforce strategies in an AI-first economy.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Why are companies like Microsoft restructuring their workforces?
Rich Pleeth: It’s not failure driving restructures, it’s efficiency. AI is displacing legacy roles and forcing companies to run leaner, more agile teams as more can be done with less. Even the biggest tech players need to show they can adapt faster to market shifts, not just scale headcount.
Jacobsen: How is AI accelerating the shift to AI workflows?=
Pleeth: AI doesn’t just automate tasks, it rewires workflows. At Finmile, thirty percent of our code is written by AI, and we use it across operations, customer support, and data analysis. Without it, our team would need to be four times the size. That’s the shift every industry is seeing.
Jacobsen: What skill sets are valuable for tech workers now?
Pleeth: The most valuable skill is systems thinking. It’s not about doing the task yourself, but knowing how to build and adapt workflows with AI. People who can bridge tools, teams, and tactics will be the ones who thrive.
Jacobsen: How should HR and workforce strategists approach reskilling?
Pleeth: Reskilling needs to move from execution to orchestration. Instead of teaching employees how to do the old job faster, companies need to train them to design, monitor, and adapt AI-driven workflows. The winners will be companies that retrain staff as AI partners, not AI casualties.
Jacobsen: How does workforce restructuring improve organizational agility?
Pleeth: Smaller teams with AI leverage can move faster than larger ones with legacy processes. That agility means quicker product cycles, tighter cost controls, and the ability to pivot when markets shift. Restructuring isn’t just about cutting headcount, it’s about building resilience.
Jacobsen: How might these changes influence job security?
Pleeth: Job security won’t come from clinging to old roles. It’ll come from adaptability. Workers who embrace AI as an amplifier, not a threat, will be in demand. Those who resist will find themselves left behind. It will be hard for some to adapt and that is where reskilling will be needed.
Jacobsen: What are the risks of over-relying on AI?
Pleeth: The biggest risk is blind trust. AI is powerful but imperfect, and if teams don’t maintain human oversight, small errors can cascade into big failures. The sweet spot is AI-first, but human-guided.
Jacobsen: What practical steps can employees take to remain competitive?
Pleeth: Everything is about experimentation. Experiment with tools, understand where they’re right and where they’re wrong, and practice adapting workflows. The most valuable employees will be the ones who test, try and experiment and can reason with AI, not just use it.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Rich.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/14
Riane Eisler, an Austrian-born American systems scientist, futurist, and human rights advocate, is renowned for her influential work on cultural transformation and gender equity. Best known for “The Chalice and the Blade,” she introduced the partnership versus dominator models of social organization. She received the Humanist Pioneer Award, and in conversation with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Eisler emphasized the urgent need for humanists to focus on values-based systems and the transformative power of caring economics. Drawing on neuroscience and history, she argues that peace begins at home and calls for a shift in worldview to build more equitable, sustainable, and compassionate societies rooted in connection rather than control. The three books of hers of note that could be highlighted are The Chalice and the Blade—now in its 57th U.S. printing with 30 foreign editions, The Real Wealth of Nations, and Nurturing Our Humanity: How Domination and Partnership Shape Our Brains, Lives, and Future (Oxford University Press, 2019).
In this interview with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Riane Eisler explains her partnership–domination framework, illustrating how deeply internalized domination influences relationships with oneself, family, community, and society. Parenting and education are key sites where values of domination or partnership are transmitted, influencing brain development and shaping cultural norms. Eisler highlights how rigid gender roles sustain domination systems and contrasts destructive “power over” models with partnership’s nurturing power. She links these dynamics to international relations, economics, spirituality, and technology, warning that domination systems drive humanity toward an evolutionary dead end. Eisler advocates for partnership values of empathy, care, and equity as essential for global survival.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: In partnership studies, how do we define “relationship”—to the self, to others, and to societies at large?
Riane Eisler: I approach this question through the framework of the partnership–domination social scale, because all of us have internalized, to varying degrees, a domination voice. In the United States, this is particularly evident. Parenting today reflects this dynamic: for some, it has shifted toward experimentation with partnership-based models, while for others, it has reverted to domination-based approaches. Neuroscience reveals that what children observe and experience in their earliest years has a significant impact on the architecture of their developing brains. These early experiences shape how individuals think, feel, act, and even how they participate in civic life.
Not everyone is affected in the same way—it depends on the range and quality of experiences available to them. In my book The Power of Partnership: Seven Relationships That Will Change Your Life (2002), I outlined real-life examples of these dynamics. That book has since had its rights returned to me, and I am now revising it with significant updates. Much of its content remains relevant, but neuroscience has advanced considerably since its publication, and my later works have drawn heavily on these new findings.
For instance, my 2019 book Nurturing Our Humanity: How Domination and Partnership Shape Our Brains, Lives, and Future, co-authored with anthropologist Douglas P. Fry, expands on these foundations with updated evidence from neuroscience, anthropology, and social science. In revising The Power of Partnership, I am adding an eighth relationship: our relationship with technology. This reflects the contemporary reality in which artificial intelligence and other technologies have become central to human life. These technologies can either sustain life—though domination systems often twist them to serve the interests of in-groups at the expense of out-groups—or they can be profoundly destructive, as with nuclear weapons. It is essential to recognize that AI, for example, depends entirely on how it is programmed: for partnership or for domination.
When we consider how relationships are ranked, we must recognize how plural identities and rigid categories are used to create systems of hierarchy and exclusion. In domination systems, fear is often mistaken for respect. This begins in families, where many internalize voices that tell them they are not good enough, pushing them to compare themselves to others. These voices consistently speak in terms of gendered stereotypes. Men are assigned one rigid role, women another, with no allowance for those in between—even though people who do not fit neatly into these categories have existed throughout human history. Such rigid stereotypes are essential to domination systems, as rigid gender stereotypes are needed to rank male and “masculine” over female and “feminine.”
Jacobsen: You mentioned the internalized domination voice earlier. Many people today are struggling with the question: how can I silence or overcome that voice—whether it comes through gender stereotypes or other pervasive cultural forms?
Eisler: Yes, that domination voice is deeply ingrained. Gender stereotypes, for instance, are omnipresent, and they are tied to the pervasive binary assumption of only two forms in humanity: male and female. We are hosting a summit called ‘Peace Begins at Home,’ which addresses these issues, particularly the violence that often begins in households where control and violence are key, and then ripples outward into other social institutions.
Take education as an example. It used to be customary to punish students physically if they “misbehaved” or failed to conform, and in some states, corporal punishment remains legal. Similarly, child marriage has not been outlawed in many U.S. states. These are serious concerns.
It is worth noting that the United States signed the Convention on the Rights of the Child over 30 years ago, yet it remains the only UN member state that has not ratified it. Even Somalia, the penultimate country to ratify, did so over a decade ago. This failure reflects poorly on the United States. That said, not every nation that has signed the Convention fully complies with its requirements; in some cases, the act of signing is viewed as a mere formality.
Jacobsen: So, how do people relate to themselves within domination psychology as opposed to partnership psychology?
Eisler: Historically, Freud emphasized the importance of adapting to the prevailing system. In contrast, today there has been a shift toward what we call emotional literacy: the recognition of our immense human capacities for empathy, for caring for others, and for caring for ourselves.
In my work on education, one of the many failures of our system is that it does not teach about relationships. It does not teach us to care for ourselves, care for others, or care for our natural environment—our Mother Earth. This neglect reflects what domination systems value: in-group versus out-group thinking, conquest, and exploitation.
Domination begins with gender. In domination-based households, children are taught rigid gender stereotypes. They are taught to rank male and “masculine” above female and “feminine,” equating difference with superiority and inferiority, with dominating and being dominated, with serving and being served. To the extent that we internalize these messages, all of our relationships—starting with our relationship to ourselves—are colored by them.
That is why, in The Power of Partnership, I begin with the relationship to the self, before addressing intimate and family relationships, community, and work relationships. All of these are shaped by whether we lean toward partnership or domination.
Psychology, I would say, has moved significantly toward the partnership side, though not wholly. For example, some still classify LGBTQ people as abnormal, but the American Psychological Association does not. This is a significant step forward. The APA has also taken a strong stand against spanking, recognizing it as violent discipline.
Jacobsen: You have described how domination psychology affects relationships with oneself, one’s family, and one’s community. How does this extend outward—to nations, international relations, and even spirituality?
Eisler: According to UN agencies such as UNESCO and UNICEF, two-thirds of children globally still live in unsafe households, households where violent discipline is normalized. This reality underscores the importance of the partnership framework. The Power of Partnership was honoured as the best self-help book of the year when it was published. However, it goes beyond traditional self-help books by addressing relationships not only with oneself and one’s family or our work relations, but also with larger structures such as our nations.
Our relationship with our nation is indeed a relationship. In democracies, for instance, we participate in voting. However, today, with the marketing of ideas and the marketing of overconsumption having become an art form, our relationship with our nation is complex. If you live in an authoritarian state, fear is marketed, and fear keeps people in line. However, when societies move toward partnership, people learn that fear and respect are not the same.
This also extends to international relations, where in-group versus out-group thinking is characteristic of domination systems. We see this reflected in cultural narratives, such as the idea of original sin or the notion of “selfish genes.” I do not have an issue with genetic studies of nonhuman animals. However, when applied to humans, the selfish gene framework falls short of capturing reality. Take the Nordic nations—Finland, Sweden, and Norway—as examples. They devote a far larger share of their GDP to helping people across the globe, people with whom they have no genetic ties.
Indeed, we are more likely to help those close to us, but this does not mean selfish genes define us. In fact, scientific evidence increasingly points to interconnection.
Consider the Nobel Prize in Physics awarded for work on quantum entanglement, which demonstrates interconnection at the subatomic level. However, the broader public is rarely given a framework that links such findings with anthropological and genetic evidence showing that all humans are interconnected and trace their ancestry back to a common origin in prehistory. Instead, we are bombarded with disconnected data that lacks integration.
From international relations, we move to our relationship with nature, our Mother Earth. Partnership relations foster harmony, while domination systems promote exploitation. Think of the economic theories of Karl Marx and Adam Smith. Both assumed that nature exists to be exploited. Neither socialist nor capitalist frameworks incorporated a principle of caring for the Earth.
Care—for self, for others, for nature—is not rewarded in our current economic system. Instead, the guiding principle is caveat emptor—”let the buyer beware.” This mindset reinforces domination structures, widening the gap between those at the top and those at the bottom. At the same time, spiritual discourses often emphasize interconnection, which aligns much more closely with the partnership model.
Jacobsen: You hinted earlier at the role of spirituality and religion. How does this connect to partnership and domination?
Eisler: When it comes to spiritual relations, at the core of most world religions, you do find what I would call the “feminine teachings”—values of caring, of love, of reciprocity, of doing unto others as you would have them do unto you.
However, these teachings are often overlaid with domination teachings: women are inferior, Eve or Pandora is blamed for humanity’s ills, and people of colour are deemed inferior. It becomes a constant in-group versus out-group narrative, reinforced by the idealization of violence. Consider Jehovah, often portrayed as a violent and jealous deity—very much a God of War. Over time, particularly during the Jewish diaspora of the past two millennia, understandings of this deity evolved. However, the larger point is that caring has been consistently devalued and unrewarded in many religious and cultural traditions.
Jacobsen: Can we make the argument that the type of deity someone believes in reflects the kind of society they value?
Eisler: To some extent, yes. If you believe in a punitive, fear-inducing deity—what people call a “God-fearing” God—you are more likely to support authoritarian social systems. Those systems equate difference with hierarchy: dominating versus being dominated.
Jacobsen: How do fear and force differ from explanation and modelling in shaping behaviour?
Eisler: That is a vital question. Fear and force are profoundly different from explanation and modelling. If a child grows up in a household where the so-called “feminine” tasks of caregiving—such as housekeeping, cooking, and caring for others’ health and well-being—are treated as inferior, they internalize that hierarchy.
However, if a child grows up in a household where parents practice partnership parenting, the lessons are very different. When men diaper and feed babies, spend more time caring for children, and are not framed as the ultimate disciplinarians who “lay down the law” when they get home, children learn about partnership instead of domination.
The good news is that in many regions of the world, younger generations are increasingly embracing this partnership model of parenting.
Jacobsen: What about conflict resolution?
Eisler: Conflict resolution is essential, but too often it has not been examined deeply enough. For example, according to the Gottmans’ research on relationships, when people resort to eye-rolling, they are entering dangerous territory—moving into contempt. Contempt undermines any attempt at conflict resolution.
Part of the problem is that in domination-oriented cultures, peace itself is devalued as “feminine.” A peaceful overture may be dismissed as a sign of weakness. That makes genuine conflict resolution difficult. I do not pretend to have all the answers, but I do know that what is modelled in the home has a powerful influence. Families deal with conflict constantly, but the question is: how is it resolved?
Traditionally, in domination households, it was often the father—though sometimes the mother as well—who imposed discipline by force. We must remember, this is not about men versus women. Women, too, are conditioned to act as agents of the domination system, both in their parenting and in accepting subordinate roles. The critical issue is whether conflict is resolved through fear and force, or through dialogue, dignity, and care.
In partnership-oriented homes, conflict resolution involves sitting down together, discussing issues, and finding solutions that meet everyone’s needs—so long as those needs do not involve harming or annihilating others. Children who see this modeled learn constructive approaches that they carry into adulthood.
Jacobsen: So you are saying the patterns we observe in families echo outward, even geopolitically and professionally?
Eisler: If children grow up with models of conflict resolution that emphasize privacy, dignity, respect, consideration, and care, they internalize those values. However, in domination systems, whether in households or on the world stage, one often sees the opposite: bitter words, smear campaigns, grandiosity, and arrogance. These are consistent through-lines of domination.
The encouraging news is that people can change. I recall the story of a deeply anti-Semitic man who suffered from a debilitating disease. A Jewish rabbi and his wife befriended him. Through their kindness, he eventually converted to Judaism.
Jacobsen: Which branch—Conservative, Orthodox, or Reform?
Eisler: [Laughing] Who knows? I honestly do not. However, it would be interesting to know. Likely not Orthodox, since traditional training in that branch tends to treat outsiders, including anti-Semites, as enemies. Still, the transformation itself is the key point: even those steeped in domination thinking can change when they encounter genuine partnership values modelled in action.
I would imagine that man’s conversion was either to Conservative or Reform Judaism, since those branches tend to be more partnership-oriented. The key point is that the rabbi and his wife refused to see him as “the other.”
Jacobsen: If you look at autocratic leaders, theocratic leaders, or those who aspire to both, these leaders want power indefinitely. Their systems are static and centralized. However, in a partnership model, power is shared more fluidly. There is negotiation, turn-taking, and adaptation based on the needs of individuals, communities, and society as a whole. What happens when people firmly embedded in domination systems—leaders and their followers—see partnership alternatives?
Eisler: That is the challenge. In authoritarian regimes, people are taught by religion, family, and peers not to deviate. Leaders who want power see only two possibilities: either you dominate or you are dominated. Their followers are taught the same. Anything that looks like seeking peace or compromise is immediately dismissed as weakness—and, as we have said before, often labelled “feminine.”
Jacobsen: Then what does partnership governance look like in practice?
Eisler: We are still in the process of figuring that out. One thing we can say for sure is that it is not an authoritarian regime. Interestingly, the European system of coalition building illustrates this more clearly than the American two-party system. In Europe, governments must collaborate to form coalitions, negotiate, and reach compromises. In the United States, by contrast, the system is structured as a win–lose competition, with Democrats or Republicans competing for all-or-nothing victories.
Our culture reflects this “win–lose” mentality everywhere. We even embed it into our language: we speak of “winners” and “losers” not only in the literal sense of outcomes in sports, but as moral judgments about people. “Loser” becomes an epithet, a way of demeaning others. That is a direct reflection of domination values.
Jacobsen: You mentioned earlier the intersection of religion and governance. Some people interpret their religion as justifying the accumulation of wealth and power. How does this connect to domination systems?
Eisler: Many people do interpret their religions that way. For example, some teach that material wealth is a sign of divine reward, despite Christianity’s teachings to the contrary.
Jacobsen: Jesus said, “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God.” He also distinguished between religious and political authority with “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.”
Eisler: But religions often contain contradictory messages that allow them to coexist with authoritarian regimes. One way rulers have resolved this tension historically is by creating state religions. A clear example is Constantine, who converted to Christianity in the fourth century. From that point forward, Christianity transformed from the religion of the persecuted into the religion of the persecutors, integrated into imperial power. (Though historians debate the details—such as the timing of his conversion and certain dark stories associated with him—the fact remains that Christianity became an instrument of empire.)
Jacobsen: How does language play into all this—how does communication shape relationships?
Eisler: Language is one of the deepest carriers of domination systems. Most of the languages we speak today are descended from the Indo-European languages, and they reflect hierarchical and gendered structures. In Romance languages—French, Spanish, Italian—the male plural subsumes the female. If you have a group of men and women, the masculine plural is used.
English is less rigid in this regard, and it has been changing. Words like “mankind” are being increasingly replaced by more inclusive terms, such as “humanity.” Singular “they” is also gaining ground. Interestingly, Finnish never developed gendered pronouns in the first place; it uses a single pronoun for all people. That is not a change but an original feature of the language.
Jacobsen: Is there any language we can genuinely call partnership-oriented?
Eisler: Not fully—not that I know of. The weight of cultural inheritance is substantial. Perhaps there are Indigenous or lesser-studied languages that embody partnership more, but I would not claim expertise in those areas. I sometimes think it would be an outstanding doctoral dissertation to use AI to systematically analyze languages, examining what hidden structures persist and how they reinforce domination or support partnership.
What we do know is that language reflects and reinforces internal models of reality. It is our internal representational system externalized. When our languages embed inaccurate or hierarchical models, they perpetuate domination. This is not accidental—it is a fundamental aspect of how domination systems sustain themselves.
Jacobsen: Are there any parts of domination systems that can actually be helpful in relationships?
Eisler: I cannot think of any. What is often confused here is the distinction between domination and necessary forms of hierarchy. People sometimes mistake a completely flat organization for a partnership system. However, true partnership does not mean the absence of structure. Every complex society requires leaders, teachers, managers, and, of course, parents. The real question is how power is understood and exercised.
In my work, I often contrast two symbols: the chalice and the blade. In domination systems, the blade represents power as power over—the power to dominate, to take life. Ultimately, that power is backed up by fear of death, whether through starvation, execution, inquisitions, or other forms of violence. However, there is also a different kind of power, symbolized by the chalice. This is the power to give, to nurture, to illuminate life. It is the kind of power we must reclaim, particularly through models such as servant leadership. Much of modern management theory is already moving in this direction: leaders are seen not as controllers or enforcers but as guides and sources of inspiration.
This is the power appropriate to partnership systems. Unfortunately, another problem we face is the widespread conflation of equity with sameness. Partnership systems do not demand sameness; they value difference. That includes the differences between female, male, and those whose identities fall between or beyond these categories. The rigidity of “masculine” and “feminine” stereotypes is itself a feature of domination systems. Of course, there are standards in partnership systems: human rights and responsibilities standards.
Another point I emphasize is that, at our current level of technological development, domination systems are driving us toward an evolutionary dead end. Technologies of communication and transportation have made us globally interconnected. However, at the same time, technologies of destruction—nuclear weapons and the slower destruction of nature through environmental exploitation—threaten our survival. The domination worldview, rooted in conquest and exploitation, is unable to address these challenges. Only a partnership worldview can.
Consider the example of a religious fanatic, such as Iran’s Ayatollah. If he genuinely believes that martyrdom will send him to heaven, attended by virgins who will fulfill his every wish, why would he hesitate to use nuclear weapons? That is the danger of combining domination systems with advanced technologies of destruction. It is precisely why we must move toward partnership quickly, before these systems lead us to catastrophe.
Jacobsen: Thank you, Riane. I will see you next week.
Eisler: Take care of yourself.
Jacobsen: [Laughing] I will try. Goodbye.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/13
Christopher Louis is a Los Angeles–based international dating and relationship coach and the founder of Dating Intelligence. As host of the Dating Intelligence Podcast, Louis draws on intuition and lived experience to guide clients toward authentic selves and meaningful romantic connections.
In this conversation, Scott Douglas Jacobsen speaks with Louis about the concept of dating with intention. Louis explains that intentional dating is purposeful, value-driven, and centred on building meaningful connections rather than casual encounters or superficial checklists. He emphasizes clarity of goals, setting realistic expectations, and aligning words with actions. Louis highlights the importance of self-worth, trust, communication, and flexibility, noting that rigidity can close off opportunities. Green flags include curiosity and reciprocity, while red flags involve manipulation and self-centeredness. Ultimately, dating with intention means showing up authentically, embracing discovery, and valuing the privilege of connection.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Okay. All right, today we are here once more with the fantastic Christopher Louis. We’re going to discuss dating with intention. When you first mentioned this to me, I was struck by how North American that phrase sounds. So, if you know the origin of it, what is the origin? If not, regardless—what exactly is it?
Christopher Louis: Well, hey Scott, how are you doing? Dating with intention is really about being purposeful. It’s a deliberate approach to finding a partner that involves understanding your own wants and needs. It’s also about making conscious choices about who you date and seeking meaningful connections, as well as prioritizing your values and compatibility.
Most people don’t have a plan when they date. Dating with intention means actively seeking a meaningful, long-term partnership rather than casual connections or just filling a void. Most people, when they’re ready to date, just put themselves out there. But do you actually have a purpose? Do you actually know your type? Otherwise, it might as well be casual dating.
Dating with intention is distinct from casual dating. Casual dating often involves meeting people without a clearly defined goal in mind—you might explore your options and see where things go, but there’s no deliberate reasoning behind it. By contrast, dating with intention means knowing your core values, having clarity about the kind of relationship you want, and approaching dating with that in mind.
Jacobsen: Now, if you were to gauge the people who come to you for professional advising on dating, what percentage have no idea why they’re even approaching you? They’re just approaching you to date, without any intention of understanding why or how to do it.
Louis: Right. I’d say the ones who are serious about coaching are usually the ones who want to get better at dating with intention. Otherwise, many people come in with struggles, saying, “I just don’t know why I’m failing in the dating space.” Many of them have non-negotiables or preferences—things like wanting a partner with certain habits, values, or even physical traits. But the core issue is that most of them don’t really know what they want in a relationship at a deeper level.
They might say they want marriage, a house, or a family, but that’s vague. You need to go deeper. I ask them, “What are your examples of dating with intention?” and most of them respond, “I don’t really know.” So I give them examples.
First, clarity of goals. Why do you want to date someone? When you date that person, what are your shared goals moving forward?
Second, set clear standards. Choose a partner who aligns with your expectations and values, not just surface traits.
Third, focus on meaningful connections. Build a deep, authentic connection—not just pass the time or fill a void. Many people don’t know how to build that deeper connection. Too often, it’s like they’re just exchanging résumés: “I want this, this, and this. This is who I am. I do this, this, and this.” But that’s not really forming a deeper bond.
Finally, make conscious choices. Instead of drifting into whatever comes along, be deliberate about who you date. Ensure potential partners match your long-term goals. For example, someone might say, “I want a partner who shares my values about family,” or “I want someone who supports my career ambitions.”
I want this, but it’s like, you know, let’s go deeper than that. Let’s make a deliberate choice about who to date—do they line up with your values? Do they line up with your goals? Do they line up with your communication style and the other things that actually matter? You can have all the extras—all the fluff—but that doesn’t mean they’ll truly match your deeper connection or align with your authentic choices.
Jacobsen: When people become intentional about their expectations, does this force them to have a more realistic view? Both about what they can realistically expect, and also what they can realistically give of themselves in a dating context?
Louis: That’s a good point. I’d say it’s a fine line. When you ask about becoming more realistic, it’s really about coming to terms with your values and needs versus just saying, “I want, I want, I want.” That’s not realistic. It has to be a two-way street. You must delve into what you and another person can genuinely share in the present moment. What are your realistic future goals?
For example, it’s not just saying, “I want someone with money,” or “I want this, I want that.” If the other person doesn’t align with you in meaningful ways, then let’s be realistic—that’s not going to work. Take children, for example. Statistically, the average number of children per family is about two. So if someone says they want four, that might be unrealistic unless both partners agree. Start with the reality, then see where things grow.
More importantly, focus on the foundation: find someone honest with you, who’s trustworthy, who communicates well, who has the same level of self-awareness, who respects boundaries, and who uses that self-awareness to guide choices.
Jacobsen: What about matching words to actions? People might set expectations and goals, discuss them with a partner, and then re-enter the dating world at 40, 50, or 60. How effective are people at aligning their words with their actions once they become more intentional?
Louis: When people become intentional, they really dial into it. They allow themselves to weed through the fluff. That’s where frameworks can help. You mentioned off the record earlier the “three-three-three rule.” The way I see it, by the third date, you should already have a clearer sense of who’s sitting across from you. By three weeks, you should have a stronger impression: “Yes, I like this person, and we’re on the same path.”
By three months, you should be ready to decide: “We’re in a relationship now. Let’s be boyfriend and girlfriend. Let’s move forward.” At that point, it’s about seeing whether your goals, your intentions, and your focus align.
But let’s be honest: sometimes by the third date, you already realize this person doesn’t line up with what you want. And that’s okay—that’s the point of dating with intention. It’s better to recognize that early.
Sometimes you meet someone who doesn’t align with your values. They don’t have a plan, and their goals don’t match yours. Maybe the person is cute, sexy, or attractive, but that alone doesn’t add up to what you want in the long run. You have to learn how to let that go. When you’re dating with intention, you’re able to let those mismatches go much earlier in the dating process.
Jacobsen: Is the philosophy of intentional dating, in a way, a counter to simply letting your future be guided by randomness—or outsourcing your future to randomness?
Louis: No, I wouldn’t put it that way. Dating with intention isn’t about eliminating randomness. Remember, dating is still about meeting people and finding someone who shares your values and goals. You’re looking for a partner who aligns with you. But life isn’t static. As time goes on, values can shift. What you want today might evolve in a year. Sometimes your partner’s path may change, and you might see yourself moving in that direction because it adds value to the relationship.
In that sense, intention isn’t rigid. It flows. You adjust your intentions and alignments as life ebbs and flows. You do need some openness to randomness, because sometimes those unexpected turns are exactly what you need. Anyone who’s too rigid—with unmovable values or non-negotiables—can close themselves off. Flexibility is essential. Isn’t that the whole point of dating in the first place? Having some flexibility?
Jacobsen: What are the common questions people ask you about intentional dating?
Louis: The first question is almost always, “What does that even mean?” Then they ask, “How do I do that?”
My first response is: clarify your goals. What do you want? Write them down. Out of that list—say you write five or ten things—understand that no one will match all of them. But if someone matches three out of five, or six out of ten, that’s promising.
The next step is setting expectations. Do you want to build a deep emotional connection? Do you want someone who respects your boundaries and understands their own? Those questions matter.
Communication is huge here. Dating with intention—like any other kind of dating—boils down to effective communication. Are you able to communicate what you want, and are you able to listen in return?
And here’s something important: dating with intention doesn’t always mean you’re looking for something serious. Being intentional means being honest about where you are. For example, you might say, “I’m not looking for anything serious right now, but I like you.” That’s still dating with intention, because you’re being open and transparent.
For example, someone might say, “I’m really looking for a long-term partner. Is that what you’re looking for as well?” That’s still intentional dating. Yes, many people want to find a long-term partner, but some are also intentional about saying, “I just want to date right now casually—are you open to that?” And some people agree, because their lives are busy. They set the tone together: maybe they’ll see each other once every two weeks, but they’re still genuinely into each other. That can last until their goals or plans shift.
Jacobsen: Do people have to take into account new evidence—like when they start to feel strongly attracted to someone—that might change their goals? For example, they start developing a meaningful connection. They begin scheduling more time with that person, building interactions. At first, their intentions may have been vague, but they’re starting to hit some real notes of connection.
Louis: I see what you’re saying. Yes. Once again, here’s the key point—and you should include this in your writing: things will continually change. Start simple. Write down three to five goals. Set some expectations about what you want from a relationship. Define your communication boundaries. That’s the template.
Once you have that framework, everything else is about discovery. Ideally, you’re thinking, “Yes, this still fits what I want, but I’m also discovering something new along the way.” Someone who makes their list too long or too rigid isn’t really being intentional—they’re being unrealistic. They’re setting standards so high they’ll never find anyone to match them.
You need balance. Be intentional, but not rigid. That opens your dating pool and helps you find a partner who’s right for you, instead of closing off opportunities because of an overly strict checklist.
Jacobsen: In a way, does your work help clients grow by widening their horizons?
Louis: Yes. Many clients come in with tunnel vision. They’re very narrow-minded, locked into what they think they want. I’ll say to them, “Look, I hear you, I see what you’re asking for—but this perfect person you’ve imagined doesn’t exist. It’s nearly impossible to find someone who matches every single box.”
Matchmakers send clients to me all the time for this reason. Their lists are too long, full of non-negotiables, and no one could realistically meet them. My work helps clients open their eyes, broaden their perspective, and understand what really matters.
Some clients come in with lists that are far too demanding—physical traits, mental traits, lifestyle checkboxes—it’s just too much. The chance of finding someone who meets every single requirement is almost nonexistent. Honestly, you’d have better odds of winning the lottery. You have to widen your field of vision. Instead of hunting for that one mythical “golden unicorn,” think about finding a whole field—you’ll have more options, more matches to learn from, and a better chance of finding someone who actually fits you.
Jacobsen: If clients do show a willingness to change some of their expectations and goals, what actually matters in dating? And what do people think matters that, in the long run, turns out to be superficial?
Louis: Good question. I can’t speak for everyone, but in my experience, what matters most is simple: does the person make you happy? Do they make you feel safe? Can you trust them? For women in particular, that feeling of safety is critical. For both men and women, communication is essential. And yes, some level of attraction matters—maybe it’s their smile, perhaps something else—but it doesn’t need to be about strict physical stats or intellectual posturing.
What I tell everyone is: clear your mind and ask three questions. Does this person make me feel good? Does this person make me feel safe? And do I trust this person? Those are the three pillars.
Jacobsen: What makes men feel unsafe? What makes women feel unsafe?
Louis: For men, the big issue is usually ego. Trust is at the core. Many men struggle with jealousy. They might idealize a specific type of woman, but once they’re with her, they don’t trust her when she goes out. Their insecurity and ego get in the way of building absolute trust. That’s what makes them feel unsafe—when they can’t let go of that fear.
For women, what makes them feel unsafe is often arrogance. Men who lean too hard into narcissism or who project a hyper–alpha vibe without emotional intelligence create insecurity. Yes, many women are drawn to confidence and strength in a man, but that needs to be balanced with emotional awareness and empathy. Without that, “alpha” turns into controlling, and safety evaporates.
Jacobsen: He needs to be able to communicate with you. He needs to make—hmm. What are the triggers you’ve noticed in real dating contexts that activate a man’s ego or trust issues early in the dating process? And for women, what are the signals that a man’s pride crosses into arrogance or even narcissism—where traits that seemed like healthy confidence at first turn out to be something more toxic?
Louis: Right, I hear you. Let’s start with men. The big trigger is trust. Many men feel unsafe because they doubt whether they can trust the woman across from them. They might think, “If she looks this good with me, how can I trust her when she goes out? If she’s this fun and flirty with me, how do I know she won’t act the same with other guys?” That insecurity skews their sense of trust.
There’s also a double standard. A man may feel free to say, “Wow, she’s beautiful,” about another woman, but if his partner says the same thing about another man, he gets jealous, offended, or even threatened. That’s ego talking, and it undermines trust.
Now, for women, the trigger is often when early charm morphs into manipulation. Some men start charismatic—saying all the right things—but that can be a mask. Over time, those men may show signs of narcissism, arrogance, or untrustworthiness. The problem is that many women don’t catch the signals early, especially if they struggle with self-worth.
Predatory men can pick up on those insecurities. They exploit them—preying on weaknesses and presenting themselves as the solution: “You need me. I’ll make you better. I’ll take care of you.” At first, that looks like support, but it’s really control. Women often gloss over red flags because they interpret that behaviour as care, when it’s actually manipulation.
Jacobsen: That raises another important point—about people being preyed on at vulnerable moments in their lives. What are your top two warning signs, for men or women, that a man is preying on them in that way? What about the green flags, as a pivot from the discussion of the red flags?
Louis: The red flags I tell women to look out for—and men too, honestly—are when someone tells you exactly what you want to hear. That’s a significant warning sign. Another is when they talk constantly about themselves, about what they can do for you, how they’ll make you feel, or how they’ll improve your life. On the surface, it sounds flattering, but it’s self-centred. It’s all “I can, I will, I want to.”
Many women like to be doted on—that’s natural. They want to feel good, loved, and attractive. But the difference between a red flag and a green flag lies in whether the other person shows genuine interest in you. A green flag is when a man asks questions, listens, and shows curiosity about your life. If you ask him something, and he answers while also showing interest back in you—that’s healthy. If instead he only makes it about himself, that’s a problem.
Compliments like “You’re so pretty” or “You’re so hot, I just want to take care of you” sound nice, but if they’re not balanced with genuine curiosity about who you are, they’re actually red flags. An authentic green flag is reciprocity, mutual interest, and open communication.
Jacobsen: In the context of intentional dating, with a realistic assessment of self and others, is part of it just showing up authentically? For instance, when someone has built a little connection early on, they essentially come to the other person saying, nonverbally, “I’m just a person. I see you as you are. Let’s see if we fit.” Is that an accurate—if maybe oversimplified—assessment of the overall dynamic?
Louis: I hear you now, yes. I like how you put that. Dating intentionally starts with bringing your authentic self to the table. That means showing up with a few clear goals, some core values, and a few expectations. That’s all you need. But you also want openness—being present without turning the date into a presentation or a performance.
When people come in saying, “This is what I want: I want to be married in two years, I want two kids, I want a house, I want to be a stay-at-home mom, or I want a partner with a great job”—that can be too much. They’re putting pressure not only on the other person but also on the dating process itself. Even if they could have had an excellent long-term relationship with that person, they’ve buried it under heavy expectations.
It’s better to come in saying, “I’m just a person. I want to be present. I want to be intentional with you. Here are some things I’d love to talk about, so we can see if we share a long-term vision.” If things don’t match up, fine—at least you’ll know before wasting time. But that requires open communication: saying clearly, “These are the things I’m looking for. How do you feel about that?” Simple, straightforward, without a giant checklist.
If you come in with a literal list—step one, step two, 100 things you want from someone—that’s too rigid. That turns dating into a job interview, and nobody should treat a first date like that.
Jacobsen: So in a sense, it becomes like a job interview.
Louis: Exactly. And if someone comes in with what looks like a job description for their ideal partner, I’d say: entertain it for a bit, see if they can relax. Sometimes it’s nerves—it might be their first date in years, maybe they’re older, divorced, or widowed. They’ve been through relationships before, so they bring more intensity. And that’s okay—it makes sense that older daters want clarity and don’t want to waste time.
But for younger people, it’s different. If you’re 20 and on your first few dates, don’t come in with a whole life plan already mapped out. Ease into it. Learn through the process, communicate, and figure out what you want as you go.
Jacobsen: What about skills people are actually good at? They come to you thinking they’re weak in certain areas—such as setting expectations or goals—but in reality, they don’t need much work in those areas.
Louis: That’s a good one. But let me start with the opposite: the skills people actually do need to work on. Many people come in saying, “I’ve got the flirting down. I know how to communicate. I’m good at all that.” But here’s the real question: do you know your self-worth? Have you taken time to love yourself before trying to love someone else? That’s where many people stumble.
Too often, people enter dating hoping to become what someone else wants, rather than standing firmly in who they are. It’s a kind of imposter syndrome. They audition for the other person instead of remembering that the date is also an audition for them. I tell my clients: sit across from that person and think, “Are they auditioning for me? Do they fit into my life?” Not, “How can I mould myself into what they want?”
Otherwise, you end up six months into a relationship only to hear, “I only did that because I thought that’s what you wanted.” That’s heartbreaking, and it happens far too often.
Jacobsen: We’re almost out of time—about a minute left. Any final quotes? They could be from Oprah, or maybe one of the Williams sisters, since we’ve been using tennis as a theme.
Louis: Oh my gosh, yes. There’s actually a great Billie Jean King quote—it’s written at the U.S. Open. It says, “Pressure is a privilege.” It’s a reminder that if you’re feeling pressure, it means you’ve earned the right to be in that situation.
That applies beautifully to dating. A first date comes with stress and anxiety—of course it does. However, if you frame it as a privilege, you view the pressure differently. You’ve earned the right to sit across from someone and explore the possibility of a connection. The question is, can you rise to that moment? Can you manage the stress and still show up authentically? That’s what intentional dating is about.
When you are dating someone, there is a lot of pressure. Many people get anxious. Many people are stressed out. Quite frankly, some people who go on blind dates have no idea who the other person is or what they look like. They only have a profile in front of them. I tell my clients. “When you go on that first date, just be present, because pressure is a privilege. There is much pressure. You will put much pressure on yourself. ‘Is this person going to be the match for me? Are we going to match up? I am so excited. I want this person to be the one.’ Don’t put so much pressure on yourself. It is a privilege to be out and about. It is a privilege to go out on a date. Go through the process. Be present, be present in the moment. Enjoy the time that you have with that person.”
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Chris.
Louis: Thanks, Scott.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/13
Matt Jefferson is a style consultant and custom clothier at TWEEDS Tampa, specializing in bespoke suiting that blends precision, artistry, and authenticity. With a background in industrial design and professional training in Japan, Matt brings a unique design philosophy to tailoring, delivering garments that inspire confidence and timeless elegance. Known for his meticulous attention to detail and personalized approach, he has built a reputation for guiding clients through transformative style experiences. Beyond fashion, Matt is an avid Brazilian Jiu Jitsu practitioner, often drawing lessons from martial arts into business and design, emphasizing discipline, adaptability, and integrity in every endeavor. Jefferson highlights bespoke tailoring’s sustainability, artistry, and cultural traditions; stresses education on waste, science-fashion collaborations, and challenges men to elevate effort in personal style.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How can traditional tailoring practices meet modern sustainability goals?
Matt Jefferson: Traditional tailoring, such as bespoke or fully custom suiting, is inherently green. At TWEEDS, we only order the necessary fabric for our clients custom clothing, therefore minimizing waste. Many higher-end fabric mills that we partner with now source sustainably, ensuring an equitable and transparent supply chain. Contrast this with fast fashion, where everything must be turned over each season, regardless of sales.
Jacobsen: How can they preserve artistry?
Jefferson: Fully custom clothing is more artistic than mall-bought options. As a Style Consultant at TWEEDS, I am able to control every aspect of the design from the buttons, to the lining, to the stitching, to bring a client’s vision to life.
Jacobsen: What role does upcycling or reworking vintage menswear play in a circular fashion economy?
Jefferson: Despite the lack of awareness for local tailors, people still seek alterations services. However, investing time, knowledge, and money for alterations is challenging. Many prefer instant gratification from big-box brands.
Jacobsen: How can technology reduce fashion production waste?
This complex topic could take many directions. For instance, you could ask how to solve the food waste problem. I believe education is key. People don’t understand how their clothing purchases contribute to waste or what happens when ready-made clothing doesn’t sell. If more Americans understood the complete cycle, we’d see more educated clothing purchases.
Jacobsen: What overlooked garments in menswear could benefit from reinvention?
Jefferson: Underwear.
Jacobsen: How do cultural traditions influence sustainable clothing practices?
Jefferson: Different cultures have different experiences with clothing. Is it made for you or bought from the mall? In Europe, Asia, and the Middle East, tailoring is appreciated. Not so much in North America. Custom clothing is a niche here. So we’re the worst offenders when it comes to supporting sustainable clothing.
Jacobsen: What collaborations between designers and scientists push the boundaries of eco-conscious menswear?
Jefferson: Materials science can contribute to fashion. Man-made fibers like LYCRA or Elastane can enhance natural fibers like Wool, Linen, or Silk. Our best-selling shirt material is synthetic, but clients love its stretch and ease of care. Are these sustainable or eco-conscious? No, but they’re employed sustainably.
Jacobsen: If you could challenge men on fashion choices, how would you do it?
Jefferson: Put in more effort. If every American man put in 10% more effort into presenting himself well, we’d all be better for it. Look good, feel good, do good.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Matt.
—
Image Credit: kdacreative.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/13
Mark Temnycky is a Ukrainian-American analyst and freelance journalist specializing in American, European, and Eurasia affairs. He serves as a Nonresident Fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center (since December 2021), and he is a geopolitics contributor at Forbes. Previously, he spent nearly seven years as a U.S. defense contractor supporting the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition & Sustainment. His work appears across leading outlets and think tanks, with a curated portfolio of articles and media available online: https://wakelet.com/@MTemnycky.
With Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Temnycky discussed the AUKUS pact’s evolving role in U.S. defense strategy. Drawing from his RAND Corporation capstone experience, he highlighted the 2025 Pentagon reassessment, aimed at aligning AUKUS with shifting Indo-Pacific priorities. Central issues include submarine production constraints, technology sharing under Pillar II, and enhancing trilateral cooperation with the UK and Australia. The review underscores integrated deterrence, force posture recalibration, and innovation through AI, quantum, and hypersonics. While industrial and workforce limitations remain obstacles, AUKUS significantly strengthens regional deterrence, particularly against China, and revitalizes allied defense capabilities and industrial bases.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What is your background with the RAND Corporation on the AUKUS relationship?
Mark Temnycky: I completed a Capstone Research Project with the RAND Corporation while pursuing my dual degree master’s program at the Maxwell School, earning a Master of Public Administration and a Master of Arts in International Relations. During the capstone, my classmates and I wrote six research papers analyzing public-to-public and public-to-private partnerships. We looked at how governments in the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia partnered with other government agencies (such as the AUKUS relationship), as well as how these governments formed relationships with various public and private institutions in their own countries. One report focused on the AUKUS relationship, contextualizing it within broader intelligence-sharing frameworks, such as Five Eyes. We presented our findings to RAND analysts in June 2017, successfully completing the project, which sharpened my understanding of trilateral defense cooperation and partnerships.
Jacobsen: What strategic objectives is the Pentagon pursuing with the 2025 AUKUS reassessment?
Temnycky: Like all other programs under the new administration, the Pentagon’s 2025 AUKUS reassessment is a strategic review intended to ensure the pact remains aligned with shifting U.S. defense priorities, particularly in the context of intensifying great power competition in the Indo-Pacific. Key challenges include expanding submarine production capacity to meet both U.S. and Australian demands amid industrial constraints, optimizing burden-sharing and co-development with the UK and Australia, and advancing emerging capabilities such as autonomy and long-range strike. The review aims to confirm that AUKUS not only bolsters deterrence and regional stability but also revitalizes the U.S. defense industrial base and fosters a sustainable partnership among these critical allies.
Jacobsen: How could the AUKUS review reshape U.S. force posture?
Temnycky: The 2025 AUKUS review presents an opportunity to reinforce U.S. strategic focus on the Indo-Pacific by enhancing forward-deployed naval and subsurface forces and deepening burden-sharing with allies like Australia and the United Kingdom. Anticipated shifts include prioritizing integrated deterrence strategies, emphasizing operational flexibility, joint interoperability, and technology integration. This recalibration supports a more sustainable, capable U.S. presence designed to impose significant costs on potential adversaries, maintain regional stability, and potentially allow reallocation of forces from less critical theaters.
Jacobsen: What about its basing in the Indo-Pacific?
Temnycky: The U.S. force posture in the Indo-Pacific is increasingly focused on dispersal and a networked presence, rather than fixed, large-scale bases. This includes rotational deployments and forward-operating locations in partner countries such as Japan, South Korea, Australia, and the Philippines, supported by frequent multinational exercises, including Resolute Force Pacific and Talisman Sabre, to enhance interoperability. The strategy emphasizes island garrisons and control of strategic maritime routes to complicate adversary planning and enable rapid response, striking a balance between readiness and political sensitivities surrounding permanent basing.
Jacobsen: What are the deterrence implications of the AUKUS submarine program?
Temnycky: One thought is that equipping Australia with nuclear-powered attack submarines will significantly strengthen undersea deterrence in the Indo-Pacific. These platforms would offer enhanced stealth, endurance, and reach, enabling persistent covert operations that threaten adversaries’ naval assets and critical sea lines of communication. The program amplifies integrated coalition deterrence, signaling a firm commitment to regional security and raising the costs of aggression. Although concerns over nonproliferation exist, the strategic benefits of maintaining maritime security and deterrence are considerable.
Jacobsen: Is this intended as a deterrent for China?
Temnycky: The AUKUS submarine initiative is primarily intended as a credible deterrent against China’s expanding maritime power. It aims to enhance allied capability to sustain covert presence and surveillance across key maritime corridors vital to China’s military and economic activities. The program injects operational uncertainty into Chinese strategic calculations, restricting freedom of movement and complicating naval operations. China’s diplomatic opposition underscores its serious regard for AUKUS as a strategic challenge. The initiative’s core purpose remains reinforcing an integrated deterrence posture that discourages Chinese aggression and supports regional power balance.
Jacobsen: How will AUKUS Pillar II tech sharing affect allied innovation and export controls?
Temnycky: Pillar II of AUKUS promotes deeper allied collaboration on cutting-edge military technologies, including artificial intelligence, quantum computing, hypersonics, autonomous systems, and others. They seek to outpace adversaries’ advances by pooling expertise and resources. Furthermore, this initiative faces challenges due to restrictive export control regimes, which have traditionally restricted sensitive technology transfers. But targeted exemptions and regulatory reforms have begun easing these hurdles for AUKUS partners. Fully leveraging Pillar II’s potential depends on modernizing export controls and building trust within and beyond the trilateral framework, ultimately accelerating innovation, interoperability, and industrial integration.
Jacobsen: What industrial-base and workforce constraints might delay AUKUS submarine timelines?
Temnycky: AUKUS submarine delivery timelines confront notable industrial and workforce challenges. Shipyards such as those in Stirling and Henderson face infrastructure and capacity limitations. The UK’s submarine industrial base bears historic strains from prior program delays and cost overruns, which raise concerns about sustaining nuclear-powered attack submarines, commonly referred to as SSNs. This will also impact SSN-AUKUS development schedules. The U.S. must balance the demands for Virginia-class construction domestically with its commitments to AUKUS. Sustaining long-term program stability will require continuous investment in workforce development, supply chains, and risk mitigation across all partners.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Mark.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/12
Irina Tsukerman is a human rights and national security attorney based in New York and Connecticut. She earned her Bachelor of Arts in National and Intercultural Studies and Middle East Studies from Fordham University in 2006, followed by a Juris Doctor from Fordham University School of Law in 2009. She operates a boutique national security law practice. She serves as President of Scarab Rising, Inc., a media and security strategic advisory firm. Additionally, she is the Editor-in-Chief of The Washington Outsider, which focuses on foreign policy, geopolitics, security, and human rights. She is actively involved in several professional organizations, including the American Bar Association’s Energy, Environment, and Science and Technology Sections, where she serves as Program Vice Chair in the Oil and Gas Committee. She is also a member of the New York City Bar Association. She serves on the Middle East and North Africa Affairs Committee and affiliates with the Foreign and Comparative Law Committee.
In this interview with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Tsukerman discussed UN underfunding and credibility crises in the DRC, Afghanistan, and South Sudan, stressing corruption, governance, and donor fatigue as obstacles.
Interview conducted September 5.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: All right, so today’s focus for Everywhere Insiders is UN News. The Democratic Republic of the Congo is in crisis. Funding shortfalls this year have forced cuts across the UN system, and OHCHR says services for survivors of sexual violence in eastern DRC have been curtailed or halted as the liquidity crunch bites.
A new UN Human Rights Office report finds that all sides in North and South Kivu—most prominently the Rwanda-backed M23—committed grave abuses since late 2024, some likely amounting to war crimes and crimes against humanity. The findings include systematic sexual violence (including gang rape and sexual slavery), summary executions, torture, and enforced disappearances.
On the battlefield, the report and wire coverage note M23’s significant advances. Reuters reports M23 seized Goma in January and then made gains across North and South Kivu. The same report says the UN found M23 received training and operational support from Rwanda’s military, which Rwanda denies.
Ravina Shamdasani, the OHCHR spokesperson, briefed the Geneva press that the Fact-Finding Mission’s report (covering Jan–Jul 2025) documents “gross human rights violations” by M23 as well as by the Congolese armed forces (FARDC) and affiliated groups such as the Wazalendo. OHCHR also flagged that funding shortages have stalled a planned Commission of Inquiry.
Women and girls are disproportionately targeted in the sexual violence documented, and the scale of attacks has surged amid the fighting, according to AP’s readout of the UN report.
Irina Tsukerman: Part of the background here is money and trust. UN entities have been cutting or postponing work due to budget gaps—UNHCR announced deep reductions for 2026 after a challenging 2025, and OHCHR has warned of delays and cancellations resulting from underfunding, which compounds the service gaps for victims.
It is also true that the UN’s reputation has been dented over the years by sexual exploitation and abuse cases involving peacekeepers, which does not help donor confidence or field operations—especially in places like the DRC.
All of this makes it harder for the UN to advocate for—and deliver—adequate support to survivors in Congo, even though the crisis is unquestionably genuine and urgent. The tragedy is that it still competes for attention and resources with other headline conflicts.
In Gaza, and even more so in Sudan’s civil war, the scale dwarfs what is happening in Congo. However, Congo remains a major human rights and humanitarian crisis. It deserves attention. It deserves resources. It deserves to be prioritized. Unfortunately, it suffers from the fact that not only the UN but also other international institutions are now experiencing a crisis of credibility.
The better way is to develop resources targeting individual situations—Congo, for instance—and perhaps de-internationalize them. Make it the focus of a specific group of countries or international actors that can dedicate their full attention to that issue and lobby the international community for support on that front, without entangling it in massive international bureaucracies that are fighting on multiple fronts, distracted, or seen as excessively biased and mistrusted. That would be the best way to help people in need—by creating mechanisms of assistance that are not dependent on organizations, countries, or actors that are not trusted with either funding or coverage of the situation.
The problem is compounded by the fact that several international crises are consuming all the oxygen in the room, due to their global scale and long-term impact on neighbouring countries and international stability. That leaves less room for people to dedicate full attention to localized conflicts, such as those happening in the Congo.
The other issue is that Congo itself is often perceived as almost a hopeless case. The government there is backed by Russia, which amplifies the abuses. Some Russian operatives involved in law enforcement operations are themselves seen as contributing to the crisis. On the other hand, that backing makes it less likely for anyone to want to intervene, because when an already undemocratic or corrupt government is also supported by a major international human rights violator, the scope for outside action becomes very limited. The only viable path is to pressure both the Congolese government and its backers, while also trying to address the non-state actors as part of a transnational problem. However, it is not easy—let us face it, it is not easy—without addressing the broader context.
In some of these countries, internal issues will inevitably be left for the government to manage, making it challenging to attract meaningful international support. The fact that Congo has been as mismanaged as it has only compounds the problem, reflecting the weakness of the political infrastructure. All of this makes any form of long-term resolution, or even short-term assistance, exceptionally cumbersome. People there are not only dealing with rebels and localized violence, but also with a government that may facilitate assistance—or may use it as an extortion tool against international organizations and donor countries, as has been the case in many other conflict zones.
You want to help civilians, but if the government is corrupt and multiple bad actors are operating in the same sphere, how do you manage to get assistance to the people who need it, rather than having it stolen and redistributed among local cronies? That creates a very narrow path for assistance, particularly for victims of sexual violence. I also think that focusing on transnational blocs—meaning victims of sexual violence in multiple conflicts joining forces—could be a way to attract greater international attention. That might be more effective than treating each subset of victims in isolation.
Child soldiers have become an international issue, where several countries have joined forces. The same has been true of landmines—countries victimized by landmines have come together to find standard solutions. Victims of sexual violence should not be confined to their own internal conflicts but should build bridges with others worldwide. The problem is that people tend to “choose their favourite victims” based on their own biases, preferences, or misconceptions about global conflicts.
There may be individuals in other countries who could be helpful to victims in the DRC, but nothing will succeed unless political differences are put aside. The focus must remain on the fact that sexual violence is wrong, regardless of who is involved, and it should be treated as a humanitarian issue wherever in the world it occurs. That is the only real way to make a lasting difference.
Tsukerman: Moving to another crisis—Afghanistan. The recent earthquake’s death toll has risen to around 2,200, which is far higher than initial estimates. About 5,000 homes have suffered partial or total damage. Roughly half a million people are affected, including approximately 263,000 children as of September 4.
UN-Habitat’s Stephanie Luce, speaking from Kabul, noted that continuing aftershocks are triggering landslides and complicating access to the area. Many women have not been able to leave their homes because of restrictive cultural norms, and the lack of sufficient female doctors means they cannot receive proper medical care. This is a natural disaster compounded by human factors.
Tsukerman: Afghanistan, of course, is no stranger to disasters of this scale. It is prone to earthquakes, like Iran and other countries in the region. In recent years, it has also faced devastating floods and harsh winters. All of this is mainly due to its geography, but the lack of infrastructure and the political situation compound the suffering.
Afghanistan’s geography makes it prone to disasters like earthquakes, floods, and harsh winters—but geography alone does not explain the current humanitarian catastrophe. It is compounded by the fact that Afghanistan has long been severely underdeveloped. Rural areas have remained underdeveloped even under the previous government. Now, the situation is worsened by Taliban corruption, international isolation, and the effective prevention of humanitarian organizations from reaching many parts of the country.
Moreover, of course, the women’s rights issue makes everything worse. Women are essentially confined to their homes under draconian laws that are harshly enforced. Men who attempt to help them may also be punished. This is an entirely preventable dimension of the crisis. You cannot prevent challenging geography, and you cannot solve economic issues overnight. However, the Taliban’s choice to prioritize religious dogma and profoundly restrictive interpretations of modesty laws over the well-being of citizens speaks for itself. It is a wholly criminal and incompetent regime that should never have been allowed to gain power, much less retain it.
Unfortunately, there is no real mechanism right now beyond trying to prevent the Taliban from stealing as much international aid as possible. The Taliban has repeatedly diverted humanitarian assistance to cronies and loyalists. Ideologically subservient followers are rewarded, while everyone else—men, women, and minorities—are treated as second-class citizens at best.
The way international humanitarian aid is currently structured perpetuates this status quo. Aid groups generally work through whoever controls the territory politically. Organizations such as the International Red Cross or their equivalents in Muslim-majority countries rely on local authorities to provide access to victims of disasters or conflicts.
This means they rarely act independently, and access turns into a political game. Yes, the Taliban bears much of the blame, but the international community has also failed to address this dimension. Instead of developing creative, out-of-the-box solutions to bypass restrictions—whether stemming from corruption or misogynist laws—international actors have largely gone along with the Taliban’s rules.
In practice, many are trying to cultivate goodwill and build diplomatic bridges, hoping the Taliban will cooperate. However, that is not how it works. The Taliban feels empowered as the sole gatekeeper of aid distribution. They will exploit that power. They will not compromise the way a democratic or less militantly fundamentalist authority might. They prioritize their dogma over health, the economy, and humanitarian needs.
So the UN, international NGOs, and governments seeking to provide basic assistance to Afghan civilians should not expect the Taliban to be a legitimate partner in the delivery of aid.
There is no practical solution unless the international community is willing to continue the status quo, where hundreds of thousands of people are virtually isolated and disenfranchised. They have to find a way to work around the Taliban—either by confronting and pressuring them or by supporting alternative governance mechanisms that could gain a political foothold in at least parts of the country. Short of that, they need creative workarounds that do not rely on the Taliban to “do the right thing.” That is simply not going to happen.
Jacobsen: The UN peacekeeping mission in South Sudan, UNMISS, has condemned an attack by a local armed group in Western Equatoria State that targeted UN “blue helmets.” The militants seized a small cache of weapons and ammunition during the incident, which occurred while peacekeepers were on patrol between Tambura and Pusay.
UN spokesperson Stéphane Dujarric stated, “We emphasize that any attack on peacekeepers may constitute a war crime… These peacekeepers are deployed to protect civilians at a time when access and security remain fragile across Western Equatoria.” Meanwhile, severe flooding in that region has affected hundreds of thousands of people.
The civil war continues, and 270,000 people have been affected by flooding across 12 counties in four states. However, again, a natural disaster that cannot be prevented is compounded by poverty, underdevelopment, political instability, health crises, and international dynamics.
Tsukerman: Beyond the floods, there is now a cholera outbreak. That is partly due to poor humanitarian conditions: lack of adequate healthcare, prevention mechanisms, vaccines, and medicine. Internal political strife adds more pressure points. Tensions with Sudan also continue, with disputes over oil, energy infrastructure, and territory fueling instability. Sectarian divisions further complicate the situation, making the border regions especially fragile.
Moreover, of course, there are governance issues, including corruption. Russia has been trying to make inroads in South Sudan, and none of that helps when addressing a natural disaster crisis. We are seeing all these dimensions come into play. The fact that peacekeepers are now at risk underscores that the human security element is no less important than the physical impact of the flooding itself.
Quite simply, the security of South Sudan—the human security—has not been adequately handled. That means that general security in a post-disaster zone is compounded by marauding, sectarian strife, and attacks on aid convoys, whether by disenfranchised groups, corrupt factions, organized crime, or other elements.
All of this is more than peacekeepers can handle alone. They do not have offensive mechanisms for dealing with crime, violence, or resolving disputes. There needs to be more than aid distributors and peacekeepers trying to stabilize the situation.
There must be a more concerted effort to engage with the local government and establish a more transparent framework for addressing the multiple, overlapping crises—and for preventing them from compounding one another.
Once again, the humanitarian dimension is being ignored by the international community, partly due to shifting priorities and partly because many Western countries are facing their own economic crises and political instability. The United States has also significantly reduced its humanitarian aid to African countries. Identifying new donors and new sources of funding is paramount.
However, just as important is creating practical solutions for addressing security, corruption, and governance challenges. Otherwise, the money will disappear into a black hole, further feeding cynicism among Western governments that previously supported humanitarian operations in countries like South Sudan.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Irina.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/12
Andrii Borovyk, Executive Director of Transparency International Ukraine, speaks on corruption, transparency, and democratic resilience during the Russian–Ukrainian war with Scott Douglas Jacobsen. Borovyk outlines how even low-level corruption undermines wartime procurement, trust, and international support. He highlights scandals, such as the “eggs scandal,” which led to reforms in military procurement, and stresses the importance of watchdog NGOs, civil society, and independent journalism. Borovyk explains the unique challenges of maintaining transparency in aid, the push for EU integration, and the risks faced by whistleblowers and activists. Despite the war, Ukraine continues to implement reforms, striving to balance emergency powers with democratic accountability.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are speaking with Andrii Borovyk, the Executive Director of Transparency International Ukraine. We conducted one interview previously for the second book project with Oleksandr Kalitenko. To set the tone: there was a red-carpet welcome for Vladimir Putin during his summit with President Donald Trump in Anchorage, Alaska, on August 15, 2025. What is your general view of the Trump administration and how it has presented itself in terms of U.S.–Russia relations, and how do you think this reflects on its stance toward U.S.–Ukraine relations?
Andrii Borovyk: At present, U.S.–Ukraine relations lack sustainability and predictability. I believe this is a common challenge many countries face in dealing with the U.S. administration. Although President Trump says he wants to end the war, they do not appear to recognize that leaders like Putin must be fought—you cannot make a deal with them. Providing support to Ukraine is the way the war can be ended, not by doing business with an aggressor. That is how the situation is viewed from Kyiv.
In the last three or four months, there have been some indications, based on public statements, of a more realistic approach. However, the most recent comments—when asked about the August 28, 2025, attack on Kyiv, which killed at least 23 people—were disappointing. The response was essentially: “Look, but they are bombing oil plants.” How can one compare striking oil infrastructure that funds aggression with bombing residential buildings? You cannot, if you understand what is happening.
Still, I retain a small hope that strategic interests remain. The question is how Ukraine can persuade this administration to view the war from a different, more human and democratic perspective.
Jacobsen: How does corruption—even at low levels—affect wartime procurement, logistics, and spending?
Borovyk: In general terms, even low-level corruption—minor procedural violations or kickbacks—can have catastrophic consequences in wartime. War is costly, so efficiency is essential. Prices surge in short timeframes. There have been numerous cases, including in Ukraine over the past three years, where organizations and businesses tried to help procure weapons for Ukraine.
Artificially high prices arise because there are too many competing interests in a globally scarce market. Inflation is also reflected in inflated costs, making everything appear more expensive. Corruption can cause delays in deliveries, result in the use of poor-quality equipment, and lead to the inefficient use of available equipment.
Of course, corruption during wartime also affects how the country is perceived as a trustworthy partner by those working with us. The loss of trust and any dishonest use of funds can undermine both foreign support and domestic mobilization of resources.
Jacobsen: What are the relevant safeguards for ensuring transparency in international aid and military support?
Borovyk: When it comes to military support, it is not very easy. If we were only talking about civilian aid—money to keep the country running—it would be easier, because that information does not need to be classified. However, with military support, details such as prices, quantities, and supply routes cannot be published in open registers. Doing so would immediately expose to the enemy how weapons are being delivered to Ukraine.
In this case, the solution lies in specific and concrete procedures between those providing the military aid and those receiving it. Independent auditors from both the donor and recipient states should be present at all times. The only information that can be reported publicly should be shared jointly by both sides, taking security risks into account. Based on such disclosures, some public analysis can then be done.
This is why we continue to say in Ukraine that reforms must continue despite the war. The state needs to remain efficient and strong—not only for its own citizens and services, but also to be more effective in managing aid and in securing additional support from international partners.
Jacobsen: What have been the major procurement scandals and lessons learned since the start of the Russian–Ukrainian war?
Borovyk: Some issues are deliberate, while others are accidental—such as errors in accounting or implementation. However, yes, there have been scandals. The most infamous was the procurement of overpriced food and equipment by the Ministry of Defence during the tenure of the first minister after the full-scale invasion began. Journalists uncovered and published this information.
It became widely known as the “eggs scandal” in Ukraine, because one of the listed food items—eggs—was priced at a level considered absurd. The key lesson was that when something connected to the military is brought into the public eye, it can provide leverage and an opportunity to reform the sector.
As a result of that scandal, the minister was dismissed. A new agency was established to handle non-lethal procurement for the military. This agency now operates under transparent rules. Today, anyone can go online and see how many socks, how much food, and at what prices these items have been purchased for the military.
This is actually an example of when a corruption scandal helped fix systems at the governmental level. However, this was also due to the swift reaction of civil society and the media. That is why freedom of speech and a vibrant civil society are so important—sometimes to prevent corruption, and at other times to investigate and expose it, so that the government can address the problem.
Jacobsen: What about relevant legal mechanisms or structural oversight that may be necessary for large-scale donations? For example, when donations reach a certain threshold, would additional legal mechanisms be necessary?
Borovyk: If we are talking about donations in general—not military donations—then in the Ukrainian context, this reminds me of the ongoing discussions about reconstruction support. In Ukraine, the approach has been to maximize transparency. However, transparency is not simply about publishing a large number of documents; it is about building effective systems that facilitate transparency.
That is why civil society proposed, and the government is now developing, an online platform where all public investment projects can be tracked, including those funded by foreign partners. Soon, anyone—even a partner in Denmark, the United States, or Canada—will be able to see how reconstruction funds are being spent, the amounts allocated, and the progress of construction projects. Transparency combined with digitalization can make a real difference.
The second point is to provide civil society with sufficient tools for oversight. The third is ensuring transparent tenders for spending these donations. Ukraine is unique in this regard because even during the war, our national public procurement system continues to function. With just a few clicks—even on a smartphone—you can see numerous tenders and procurements conducted online. This level of transparency and oversight is rare under wartime conditions.
The other critical element is accountability. Oversight is not only about transparency but also about ensuring responsibility in the use of funds. That is why Ukraine needs continued reforms, especially to strengthen our audit institutions. At the governmental level, we have two audit bodies—one under the government and one under the parliament. These require a greater capacity to track potential misuse of funds and, when necessary, alert law enforcement to open cases.
Large-scale donations should be based on three pillars: transparency, civil society oversight, and robust audit institutions with enforcement powers.
Jacobsen: A question that is often on people’s minds is how Ukraine compares to other major wars in the last few decades in terms of transparency, corruption, and governance. In Canada, for example, media coverage focuses heavily on Russia–Ukraine and Israel–Palestine, with only occasional references to conflicts in Iran, Sudan, or Ethiopia. However, there are at least 15 major active wars worldwide. It is important to have a broader perspective. Three years ago, most questions centred on corruption in Ukraine’s weapons procurement, because there had been so much corruption in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Borovyk: I have always said that Ukraine cannot even be compared to Iraq or Afghanistan. Ukraine is a functioning state. From the beginning of the full-scale war, and even now, we have demonstrated that we are not falling apart. We remain a state, we remain a member of the United Nations, and our institutions continue to function. While I do not claim deep knowledge of every other conflict, what makes me proud is how Ukraine has managed this war internally.
In school and university, we were taught that in wartime, the media disappears, the government controls everything, there is no free speech, and everything is classified. However, this has not been the case in Ukraine. We have maintained relatively high levels of openness even during wartime. For example, our public procurement system has continued operating. At the very beginning of the war, competitive tenders were suspended and replaced with direct contracts. However, by June or July 2022—just four months later—the government reopened competitive selection processes in more and more sectors, as it understood that this approach saved money by achieving better prices.
We also continue to have independent media. Yes, there are occasional reports of law enforcement pressuring investigative journalists; however, Ukraine generally has an independent and active journalism sector. Starting at the end of 2022, an unwritten pact between government and civil society—whereby journalists would not criticize authorities while the war was raging—was broken. Since then, investigative reporting has flourished, producing many critical stories. That sets Ukraine apart.
In addition, our anti-corruption institutions remain active. A scandal at the end of July demonstrated that Ukraine’s political life is very much alive. Politicians, like those in many countries, often do not favour anti-corruption bodies, but civil society pushes back, and people even protest in the streets to defend them. This resilience impresses observers.
These examples provide Ukraine with an opportunity to become a model of combining wartime needs with ongoing reform. What also makes us unique is that, while fighting a war, Ukraine applied for European Union membership and is now carrying the responsibilities of moving toward integration. There is no precedent for a country applying to join such a major political and economic union while simultaneously conducting a war and pursuing reforms.
Reforms are difficult even in peacetime. Attempting them during war is extraordinarily hard. That is the defining challenge—and also the defining difference—of Ukraine’s current context.
Jacobsen: Reforms are difficult in regular times. Try them during bombings. Let me move to my next question: How can democratic institutions balance emergency powers with democratic accountability? This is a nuanced issue that is not always easy to thread.
Borovyk: Yes, and your question is fundamental. Over the past three years, I have noticed that many people, including politicians, often misunderstand what this means. They often say: “We are at war, so we need to be more flexible. We need to concentrate power and make quick decisions.” Moreover, sometimes someone will respond: “But this is not democratic.”
Democracy is not simply about whether power is concentrated or not; it is also about how power is distributed. Democracy is about checks and balances. If proper checks and balances are in place, then concentration of power can still be acceptable during wartime. The balance between emergency powers and democracy can be achieved through an active role of parliament. In Ukraine, however, our parliament is not always as active as it should be—but ideally it should play a stronger role.
Independent media, anti-corruption bodies, and civil society organizations also help balance concentrated power. Another factor that helps Ukraine is European integration. The lengthy list of conditions attached to EU support, along with the even longer list of reforms required for integration, imposes accountability on the government. These are legal obligations we must implement, and they help ensure Ukraine remains a democratic country despite the war.
Jacobsen: What about the legal frameworks for seizing and repurposing frozen Russian assets for Ukraine’s recovery? Moreover, perhaps the process itself is also a factor, as people often hear about asset seizures but may not fully understand how they work.
Borovyk: That is a good question. I cannot provide a detailed legal answer here—I can offer a more technical paper later through our legal team. However, politically, I can say this: over the last three years, I have discussed the seizure of Russian assets with many European and U.S. politicians, both when they visited Kyiv and when I travelled abroad.
The answer I usually hear is not legal but political. They say: “We cannot do this, because if we seize Russian assets now, then, for example, China could do the same with our assets held there.” My response is that they are applying peacetime thinking to a wartime problem. That approach does not work.
Can you imagine, for example, during the German invasion of France, a French politician allowing German companies to keep operating in France? Of course not—they would have been immediately confiscated for the sake of France. That is the logic we are facing today. In Ukraine, such confiscations are possible, but in Europe, they are still not permitted. However, this is the 21st century. If Ukraine falls, Russian troops will be at the European Union’s border. If Europe wants to prevent this, it needs to seize Russian assets and redistribute them to sustain the war effort—keeping the fighting one thousand kilometres from the EU border, rather than two kilometres. That is my answer. If you would like more specifics, I can have my legal team prepare the necessary materials.
Jacobsen: How are NGOs and watchdogs, such as Transparency International Ukraine, helping to monitor corruption risks?
Borovyk: NGOs and watchdogs play a critical role. Our primary function is to shed light on corruption risks, highlight specific problems, and draw attention to them so they cannot be overlooked.
In our case, we also monitor public procurement contracts. Over the last year, we terminated contracts worth more than $15 million across various sectors. These were contracts where we identified violations. We raised the issue—sometimes publicly, privately—and as a result, the contracts were cancelled.
Also, thanks to our applications and oversight, more than 40 criminal cases related to public procurement were opened last year. That is one side of our work—pure watchdogging. On the other hand, NGOs in Ukraine, including ours, often collaborate with the government to support reforms and close corruption loopholes.
In this sense, Ukrainian NGOs often act as a single large think tank, identifying problems and proposing solutions to mitigate corruption risks. Moreover, when there are attacks on anti-corruption institutions—which we believe are functioning effectively and producing results—we stand against those efforts, both publicly and privately. So yes, that is what we do. However, Ukrainian NGOs are not only watchdogs; we like to say we are also “do-dogs.”
Jacobsen: How can whistleblowers protect themselves, and how can institutions protect whistleblowers, investigative journalists, and activists during conflict?
Borovyk: This is precisely why reforms are necessary—so that governmental institutions have both the capacity and authority to protect. Some protections already exist on paper: authorities must provide anonymity and shield whistleblowers from retaliation. There are also several mechanisms designed to protect them. Sasha has spoken about this extensively.
Journalists are covered under the media law, which protects their sources. For activists, however, it is more difficult. There is no specific legislation to safeguard them. In general, for all these groups, international support mechanisms, public advocacy, and pressure from international partners can protect once an issue becomes public.
Those who speak the truth during war are literally saving lives, not threatening them. In Ukraine, this does not always work perfectly, but when scandals arise—such as cases of pressure against activists or journalists—strong public attention and reactions from international supporters significantly increase the chances that such attacks will fail.
Jacobsen: What about reputational harassment, doxing, or delegitimization?
Borovyk: Yes, this happens as well. That is why every nation must cultivate critical thinking among its people. In Ukraine, this is important because such harassment often appears on Telegram—a platform widely used in the region. There, you can find black PR campaigns targeting activists. The only absolute protection is telling the truth, because lies eventually collapse under scrutiny and often appear absurd in comparison to facts.
Jacobsen: That resonates with our experience in Canada as well. At the start of the full-scale war, Russia spread false narratives about Ukraine being run by neo-Nazis. Those claims faded over time, partly because they were so obviously false. The irony was apparent: Ukraine’s president was both Jewish and a former comedian. It was, unintentionally, the perfect punchline to Russia’s propaganda. Are there any other points you think we should cover regarding corruption and accountability during this war?
Borovyk: I would point to the Corruption Perceptions Index we published in January this year. Ukraine lost one point, which signalled stagnation in reforms—particularly in the fight against corruption. However, I hope that the events of July 22, when there was an attempt to strip the independence of anti-corruption institutions, will prove to be a turning point.
The reaction from Ukraine’s international supporters—except notably the United States, at least publicly—was extreme. Hopefully, this showed our politicians that there is no alternative but to continue reforms, and that this is no time to halt anti-corruption efforts.
I say “hopefully” because Ukraine remains a normal country, even during war, and a new political season is set to begin in September. We will observe how politicians behave, the actions they take, and the initiatives they support in parliament and government.
Jacobsen: Thank you very much for your time today. It was a pleasure speaking with you. I appreciate your expertise.
Borovyk: Thank you. Goodbye.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/25
How can epigenetic workouts and small daily pleasures support healthier, longer lives?
In this lively exchange, Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen riff on epigenetic longevity hacks, debating whether clustered or spaced-out workouts best trigger anti-aging benefits. They compare exercise to intermittent fasting, wander into botanical philosophy via aspens, willows, and backyard redwoods, and treat vegetables primarily as respectable butter-delivery systems. From sushi fish and popcorn to tiramisu, strawberry shortcake, and chocolate-heavy biscotti, Rosner maps his shifting sweet tooth onto the realities of aging. The result is a humorous meditation on bodies, habits, and small daily pleasures that keep life interesting, even as cheesecake loses its charm.
Rick Rosner: I’ve got a quick topic. I’ve got a topic. One of these longevity guys on Twitter says that working out may be worth more than any number of drugs—that epigenetically it changes you. If you work out a shit ton, it supposedly makes some helpful genes kick in and join the fight against aging. I work out a lot, but my workouts tend to cluster at a particular time of day. So I wondered: epigenetically, is it better to space them out throughout the day? In the movie Conan the Barbarian, young Conan is enslaved and forced to push a giant mill wheel—the “Wheel of Pain”—for years. He’s basically powering some kind of grain mill or heavy mechanism, like one of those draft animals dragging a big spoked thing around. According to the logic of the movie, that’s how he turns into Schwarzenegger. So he’s effectively working out all day, every day. Lately, once I’m awake, I’ve been making sure I do a couple of sets every couple of hours. Will that do anything? Who knows?
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: It’s quite equivalent to periodically fasting for at least eighteen hours or something. That’s probably good for you.
Rosner: Yeah, I want to do that. That does not sound very good. I’d rather—look, I’ve got a stupid universal machine in the attic. I can do a couple of sets every few hours. Three sets every two hours, three sets, take a nap, do some more sets. I can do that.
Jacobsen: What’s your favourite type of tree, and why?
Rosner: I have a favourite thought about a tree, which is that there’s no single “best” tree. Otherwise, all trees would look the same. Different trees follow different strategies for gathering resources, mostly sunlight. When you look at trees with a full canopy, there’s not much light that gets through. Unless it’s fall or winter and the leaves are gone, a tree with whole leaves has a dense setup to capture as much light as possible. But the shape of the leaves varies widely, so obviously there’s no one best design. There is something like a best in terms of dimensionality: most broadleaf trees have thin, flat leaves—basically sheet-like, “two-dimensional” structures compared to their size.
That part seems settled, though not wholly, because cactuses mostly use thick, fleshy stems and spines instead of normal leaves, and pines and other conifers go with narrow, needle-like leaves. So there’s a loose consensus that many leaves are relatively flat, but the exact shape and structure of that flat surface is absolutely not settled. All right, favourite kind of tree. I like the idea—creepy as it is—that poplars or aspens can basically be one organism. In some species, what appears to be a whole stand of separate trees over a large area is actually a single clonal colony, all genetically identical and connected underground. They sprout from the same root system.
Advertisement
They’re all connected underneath by that shared network. That’s interesting and creepy. I don’t know if that makes it my favourite tree. What else? I like a bushy, well-rounded tree—the kind with a trunk that goes up and then goes foof, and you get a big sphere of leaves. That’s a good-looking tree. I also have an apple tree in the backyard that I grew from a seed. It’s about fifteen years old now, this spindly thing that’s never been properly pruned. It turns out that to grow a productive apple tree, you generally need to prune it—pick a strong central trunk, keep some solid scaffold branches, and cut back a lot of random shoots so it has a good structure and can put energy into fruit. This apple thing is just a bunch of snaggly little branches going everywhere and will probably never sprout an actual apple. But it’s my tree. I raised it from a seed in an apple I ate. So those are my favourite trees. I also have an old cactus in the back that keeps surviving—when it gets too big, part of it breaks off, takes root, and grows again.
Jacobsen: Any favourite trees? My favourite is the willow.
Rosner: Yeah.
Jacobsen: I love that they’re tall and then they droop down. I love that.
Rosner: Yeah, that’s okay. That’s an okay tree. We’ve also got a redwood in our backyard, which is cool. It’s cool to have a tree that’s around a hundred feet tall. And sometimes a bald eagle will sit on top of it—we’ve seen that a couple of times. If it’s not a bald eagle, we’ll get owls. I assume the owls are doing whatever owls do up there. But that redwood is a pain in the ass because it’s at the corner of our lot, and it has the potential to drop debris on our neighbours’ property. Our neighbours are always nervous about the tree. So we’re always getting it trimmed to make sure it won’t drop anything on them. One of our neighbours has fancy friends—and an Oscar nominee, if she has a backyard party. If we don’t keep our tree trimmed, an Oscar nominee could get bonked on the head. That would not be good. So we like our tree. We don’t like the cost. It used to be a couple of hundred bucks to prune. Now, the next time we get it looked at, it’s going to be fifteen hundred American bucks—not your twenty-five-percent-off Canadian dollars. So.
Jacobsen: What’s your favourite vegetable?
Rosner: Well, no, because I don’t love vegetables. But anything you can sauté in butter, I’m good with. I’m not often satisfied by Brussels sprouts, but if they’re done right, they’re excellent. And an artichoke is good because you can use it to scoop up your buttery sauce. What’s yours? Spaghetti squash is good again, because you can hit it with a ton of butter. So I guess what I’m saying is any vegetable that is a device for—
Jacobsen: Do leafy greens count?
Rosner: Yeah, they do.
Jacobsen: Well, kale. Kale salads are delicious. It’s like the majority of what you can get with—
Rosner: I do not love kale. I do not love kale. And my wife, for a long time, believed in spinach, and she put spinach in a ton of things that shouldn’t have had spinach in them, because when you cook spinach, it gets really droopy. And also the idea that you put spinach in there because it has more iron than any other leafy vegetable—no. That was a mistake made in the 1930s. Someone misreported the amount of iron in spinach. Spinach is no richer in iron than any other leafy vegetable. So. Fruit. Raspberries—great. Cherries—great. Blueberries are way better, depending on whether they’re crunchy, yeah. Suppose they’ve turned mushy, no. Blackberries—great if they’re sweet. But raspberry, as a flavour mixed with chocolate, is my favourite shake or ice cream flavour. Baskin-Robbins used to have chocolate raspberry truffle, and it cost extra because it was so deluxe.
Advertisement
https://edge.aditude.io/safeframe/1-1-1/html/container.html
Jacobsen: What’s your favourite meat?
Rosner: Sushi meat—meaning fish.
Jacobsen: Which fish? Tuna, salmon.
Rosner: Yellowtail. What is your favourite grain? It’s tricky because you don’t like carbs. You could say cookies plus carbs.
Rosner: I like carbs—just carbs don’t always agree with me if I’m stressed. Wheat Chex is my favourite Chex, but that doesn’t mean wheat is my favourite grain. Some obscure grains are really crunchy when cooked right. I mean, corn is a grain, right? So you’ve got popcorn. You can’t beat popcorn. It depends on how you’re preparing the grain. And some of my preferences might be about whether you can make them savoury enough by mixing them with butter.
Jacobsen: What’s your favourite dessert?
Rosner: Tiramisu is delicious. I still have a sweet tooth, but it’s not as dominant as it used to be. I often get excited about dessert in theory, but when it comes down to specifics, I’m like, no thanks. We go to the Cheesecake Factory, and I’m excited, and then when it comes down to picking a type of cheesecake and eating it, it takes me a week to get through a piece because I’m only suitable for a couple of bites, and it’s not that satisfying, which is more about me getting older than the cheesecake. But okay: strawberry shortcake with whipped-cream icing, not buttercream. Buttercream is gross, but whipped cream is a nice icing. You rarely see it on anything but strawberry shortcake. Anything with whipped cream in the mix, I’ll like.
Jacobsen: Favourite snacking food? Can’t say Triscuits.
Rosner: No. A nice cheesy cracker—there are these Nut Thins, the cheese-flavoured ones made out of almonds. It’s a good cracker, though really a bad cracker, because it’s made out of almonds. I shouldn’t be eating almonds because if you’re prone to kidney stones, you don’t want them. And almonds require a considerable amount of water to grow. It’s wild how much water it takes. So it’s a good-tasting cracker, but not a cracker I should be eating. Salted matzah is good. There’s a brand called Moonstrips. Regular matzah is bland—it’s only as good as whatever you put on it—but when it comes pre-salted, it’s excellent.
Jacobsen: Favourite seasoning or spice?
Rosner: One of those blends that pretends to be about all the different spices but is really predominantly salt. Old Bay—technically a Chesapeake seasoning, not Cajun—is pretty salty. Whatever they put in the breading for Popeyes—I love Popeyes, mainly because they take chicken and make it salty.
Jacobsen: What’s your favourite energy drink, regular drink, sweet drink, and alcoholic drink?
Rosner: My favourite basic drink is just cold water—soft water, not super minerally. And I like diluted Diet Coke. You take the Coke and then do half Coke, half water. That’s decent. As for sweet drinks—setting aside the racial-prejudice stereotypes about which sodas Black people are supposed to like—grape soda is delicious. When we go out to the fish restaurant where they give you a cup and set you loose on the beverage machine, I’ll get water, Diet Coke, cream soda, a shot of black cherry, and whatever. Mixed, it’s gross.
Jacobsen: Cold drink, hot drink—favourite?
Rosner: Coffee that’s all chocolated up, whether cold or hot. And if you can get some dark-chocolate flavouring in there, even better. There’s this place we go when we visit our kid in London that makes hot chocolate with 72% dark chocolate. You know how chocolates have different percentages—the higher you go, the less sugar and the more cocoa you get. The low 70s are the sweet spot.
Jacobsen: All right, so what else do you have? Favourite cheese or artificial drink?
Rosner: Favourite what-used-to-be-cheap restaurant that’s an actual restaurant would be the Old Spaghetti Factory. There used to be one in Hollywood, but they shut it down around fifteen years ago. You used to be able to take the whole family out to dinner there and get out with a tip for under twenty-five bucks. They made buttery spaghetti with mozzarella cheese on top—which is super salty—and you got a salad, a little loaf of bread, and dessert. It was super cheap. It was awesome, but they sold the building. Now we have to go out to Arleta or somewhere if we want Old Spaghetti Factory. Favourite tea? I don’t have a favourite tea. Carol brings home some chai latte mix, which is fine—it’s tea dressed up so it almost tastes like milky coffee. My Favourite protein bar is a chocolate mint Builder Bar.
Jacobsen: What’s your favourite baked good that Carole makes?
Rosner: She makes delicious cookies, but I’ve been losing my taste for sweets compared to how I used to be. I still eat a ton, but whatever she makes with more chocolate chips than she wants to put in—those are my favourites. She makes mandel bread, which is a hard biscotti-like thing. That’s my favourite. My favourite cookie is probably chocolate-dipped biscotti. I need to get to her when she’s blending the dough so we can add way more chocolate chips than she wants. You need a couple of chocolate chips in every bite; otherwise, it’s just a hard, sweet cookie bread. Thanks for all the questions.
Jacobsen: You’re welcome. That was good. Those could be thematically organized.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/24
What is your favorite movie and why? Or what is one of your favorite movies and why?
In this interview, Scott Douglas Jacobsen talks with Rick Rosner about movies, mega-IQ tests, AI, and the future of consciousness. Rosner explains why Long Shot succeeds as sharp wish-fulfillment, reflects on the brutal difficulty of Cooijmans and Hoeflin high-range tests, and worries that humans may become like dogs—immersed in sensation but missing understanding. He sketches consciousness as a crisis-response system that allocates attention under pressure and predicts that only tightly AI-augmented people will ride the coming tsunami of complexity, while most drift through frictionless entertainment, sporadic insight, and increasingly outsourced thinking, with ethics and meaning left dangerously unresolved for everyone.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What is your favorite movie and why? Or what is one of your favorite movies and why?
Rick Rosner: I like Long Shot with Charlize Theron and Seth Rogen. She plays the Secretary of State, and he plays a schmuck who writes speeches. It’s really funny and very wish-fulfilling. Normally that would annoy me, but they build it out well. They make it so it’s not too fucking lazy. It’s not lazy at all. It feels well-constructed.
Jacobsen: What was the most obscure or difficult IQ-ey problem, or at least high-range test question you ever took? Not the 3 interpenetrating cubes problem. That was hard for everyone.
Rosner: Not to give anything away, but the most obscure would be from Cooijmans. I can’t talk about it extensively, but he is the king of obscure test design, both in subject matter and item construction. There might be others, but he is the most obscure for which I at least have a shot at solving the items. Anybody can build a meandering path through arcane material that nobody has a chance in hell of navigating to the correct answer. With him, occasionally I make it out of the thicket. But I can’t talk about specific problems or specific subject matter, because that would be a clue, and he would hate that. Plus, I don’t want to contaminate his test. We know that the Mega Test and the Titan Test, both created by Ronald K. Hoeflin, were compromised by years of people discussing them and sharing answers online. You had people saying, “What’s the answer to this?” and “Here’s the answer to that.” Mostly they’re wrong, but sometimes they’re not. It’s bad. Hoeflin did really good work, and it became obsolete because of that kind of contamination. And Cooijmans does good work.
To get back to what I was saying yesterday, I was thinking about how human thought is going to change under the AI regime. For a lot of people—not that people aren’t already this way—we’re going to be like dogs. We’ll experience things, but we won’t understand things, because we’ll be under the auspices of big-data thinkers spitting out more complexity in a rapid-fire, rat-a-tat manner than we can decipher. So we’re going to have to team up with AI to have any chance of understanding the world. When there was less of the world to understand, and it came at us more slowly—like for the hermit in Train Dreams—you had a chance to slow down and actually have an idea about things.
In the future, a lot of people will just have impressions and a swirl of being entertained and getting boners, for those who can, and just enjoying a swirl of experience with little introspection or hope of making sense of it all. And then the people who are wired in, who are half-AI themselves, they’ll be hit with insights like insight porn. They’ll get hit with wonders and revelations. And will that be any better? I don’t know. Or is it just another form of jacking off?
Jacobsen: It is almost aside from arguments about whether we think the same way or whether we can create an apparatus—like the brain and the current form of computation—that functions the same in process. The output can be basically the same. A robot that can dance can be considered a human that dances, not in terms of subjective experience or feeling, but in terms of making the same motions. Similarly with intellectual or linguistic productions, especially with LLMs. So what you are pointing out is something almost independent of what people claim are the most critical questions. In that sense, these might actually be the most critical questions. They may be superficial in the final analysis.
Whether or not they solve this open problem—similar in processing, but just in terms of functionality—functional, pragmatic dreams of the world, process-oriented. And, you know, for all intents and purposes.
Rosner: It’s the same because consciousness—well, mental processing—is one of those “let’s do it in the cheapest way possible while still getting a reasonably reliable result” situations. Our brains evolved to efficiently process the world for us. And the way AI will think, once it’s made efficient—and even when it isn’t—will be very, very similar. Consciousness will arise reasonably soon, whether or not we try to create it intentionally, because consciousness is an efficient instrument.
You take all the known processes and make them semi-conscious or unconscious. We don’t have to think about walking or breathing unless something unusual is going on. Then you take all the unknown stuff, throw it into the pot in the middle, and kick it around. Most of the time you resolve it quickly, or it doesn’t fucking matter and you move on. And then you move on to the next set of things you have to consider in your immediate set of needs and environment.
That’s what consciousness is. They call it a stream of consciousness because you pass by a bunch of stuff, but “stream of consciousness” isn’t really the right way to think of it. It’s not a SWAT team of consciousness—we’re not in tactical gear—but it’s a constant crisis-response team where a bunch of things demand your attention. You give each thing the attention it deserves in light of how important you think it is, what resources you have to think about it, and everything else that’s going on. It’s just boom, boom, boom, boom, boom.
It’s not even like the cleaner guy in Pulp Fiction who shows up to deal with special situations. It’s people scrambling to keep up with things every single microsecond. And when you get AI up on its feet in real-world situations, it’ll be that way for it too.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/24
How might emerging brain–computer interfaces and collapsing shared worldviews transform the very idea of a unified human consciousness?
In this exchange, Scott Douglas Jacobsen asks Rick Rosner about consciousness, identity, and the future of collective thinking. Rosner reflects on speculative brain–computer interfaces, imagining a “brain platoon” in which linked soldiers shift between individual and shared minds. He contrasts this with a hermit in Train Dreams, whose improvised worldview emerges from isolation rather than information overload. Jacobsen pushes back, arguing that philosophical frameworks differ across cultures, histories, and roles, while Rosner suggests that modern life’s torrent of facts fragments belief. Together, they explore whether unified consciousness—or unified philosophy—is still possible in a hyperconnected age.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: When was the last time you took a bath?
Rick Rosner: Mutations that facilitate a machine interface directly with the brain—this is in the fictional setting of the novel I’m talking about—where Elon Musk’s company Neuralink and other groups are experimenting with implanted brain–computer interface chips. This individual can interface more easily than many other people. At various points in the novel, this person has multiple links to external information-processing devices.
This led me to think about how we often treat consciousness as unitary: not a multiple brain, not a multiple mind. We think of it as one mind largely because consciousness serves one person, one individual. Generally, your consciousness is well integrated, so it’s easy to imagine it as a single thing, because we imagine ourselves as single entities, even though we are quite multiplicitous with our various inputs and processing nodes.
I came up with a half-formed idea that, given everything occurring within consciousness, maybe we should think of ourselves as a “world braid” rather than a “world line,” which may be pretentious and silly.
Then I wondered what would have to happen for consciousness to no longer be thought of as unitary. There would need to be linked individuals where the linkage isn’t only information; where judgment and authority over the linkage aren’t as strong as what occurs within each individual mind.
I imagined, for example, a platoon in 2040—twelve people linked by hardware in their heads, with brain–computer interfaces allowing low-latency digital communication among them that is tunable. When they are off duty, the “brain platoon,” or “mind platoon,” is tuned way down, and everyone functions as an individual.
During battle, it could be tuned up to a level that becomes dangerous for the individuals who are linked, where the platoon-level mind is putting them in harm’s way. That’s one way to imagine a consciousness that is sometimes fleeting, sometimes unitary, and sometimes fragmented.
Rosner: You could imagine different levels of command and processing in a military situation. There could be a brigade consciousness. The military is a hierarchy, each level containing a different number of troops.
You can imagine people in command imposing different levels of control over the individuals who are linked, depending on the situation and the objectives. And then there is the question of how much control the individuals are willing to yield in any given moment. In a setup like that, you can imagine a non-unitary, linked set of consciousnesses.
It would make a terrible movie. You would add machine consciousnesses to the mix if you were trying to make it even remotely realistic, because by the time this is possible for people, you will have AIs that—whether conscious or not—are capable of thinking and weighing in on the situations this platoon encounters.
I am not sure if that adds anything to the discussion, because I have cheated by saying, “We just took a bunch of soldiers and linked them together, and sometimes they are one mind and sometimes they are not.” I am not sure how much that contributes.
Another topic, Carole and I saw a movie last night called Train Dreams. It is about a man born in 1880 who lives in the woods. He works as a logger for a while and then as an itinerant handyman. He lives as a hermit for decades and then quietly passes away at the age of 88. It is a meditation on how this isolated man views nature and his role within it.
He thinks in frameworks of debts—almost religious debts—that he believes must be paid or have been exacted. He lives within these various self-imposed, or at least self-interpreted, structures while having far less interaction with people and far more with nature than most.
I was thinking about how he has various theories and philosophical frameworks that he uses to explain his position in the world. He is not highly educated, yet he has built these explanatory systems despite knowing very little. Toward the end of the movie, he leaves his cabin and visits Spokane. He must have seen television at some point, but he has never heard of astronauts. By this time he is in his 80s, looking at footage of John Glenn—so around 1962—and he has no idea astronauts exist. It does not matter to the plot; it simply shows how isolated he has been.
He knows almost nothing, but he is constantly trying to figure out how he fits into the world. I was thinking about how that contrasts with us, who have access to nearly all human knowledge almost instantaneously. I am not sure we have much in the way of philosophical frameworks anymore. And we are all kind of idiots.
Jacobsen: We have talked about this before. People used to have religious frameworks and philosophical frameworks. If you asked most people today what their philosophies are, you would not get many overarching worldviews.
Rosner: If you asked a “dude bro,” “What is your philosophy?”, you might get something like, “Get the other guy before he gets you,” or, “You cannot worry about everything.” None of these are overarching. I think you would get even less from most people now about humanity’s role in the world—what we are here for—than you would have if you asked people seventy or a hundred years ago. What do you think?
Jacobsen: A few false assumptions are floating around in that response. Every ethnic group, every theology, religion, political system, every style of governance—whether centralized in an emir or pharaoh or distributed in a democratic system—must be considered. These are statistically distributed across roughly 110 billion people who have ever lived.
If you take that as a basis for understanding the spread of philosophical frameworks, you have to consider the farmer who knows how to shoe a horse versus a mathematics professor who wins a Fields Medal and works in combinatorics and number theory versus someone working in the trades.
This is relevant for distinguishing how people build frameworks. Each person’s worldview is a delimitation of a coherent and comprehensive understanding of the world, but it is functional within its own context. No human has ever formulated a truly comprehensive model of the world, because doing so would require containing the world itself. Anything else is a shortcut. That brings us back to the earlier point.
Rosner: You mentioned religion. I feel that the world’s major demographic religions—Catholicism, Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism—have overarching philosophies. But we have talked about this a lot, because we talk about a tremendous amount of things. I feel that belief, even among adherents, has been hollowed out by the onslaught of knowledge that makes it harder to believe in an overarching system.
I suppose if you asked—well, you are right, I was speaking from the perspective of a guy living in California looking at other Californians. But still, I do not know.
Jacobsen: Even within California, it breaks down. You would move from a global view to a regional view to a national view. It goes down to the core debates: intersectionality on one side, rugged individualism on the other. The endgame for both is the same—taking each individual as a culture of one. Intersectionality uses categorical markers; individualism takes people as they come. The categories differ, but the structural endpoint is similar: everyone is a cultural one. That is the broader point.
Rosner: But what I am trying to argue—perhaps badly—is that the onslaught of factuality erodes philosophizing. When you are hit with facts and endless noise every day, you are simultaneously distracted and fragmented. The distraction fragments belief because the stuff we are bombarded with does not add up to anything coherent.
In the United States, much of the distraction adds up to the idea that the people in charge are incompetent or malicious. That is the conclusion a lot of what I see pushes me toward. But that is not an overarching worldview, and it does not help build one.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/23
How do Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen interpret Marjorie Taylor Greene’s resignation, Trump’s erratic behavior, and emerging national-security concerns in the United States?
“Trump is not strategic. He reacts. When he looks friendly, it’s usually whim, not plan.” — Rick Rosner
In this interview, Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner examine Marjorie Taylor Greene’s abrupt resignation and the political fallout surrounding her break with Trump. Rosner argues that Trump’s friendliness toward New York mayor-elect Mamdani reflects impulse, not strategy, and explores whether New Orleans may face the next immigration dragnet. They discuss congressional warnings about unlawful military orders, Trump’s explosive reaction, and the administration’s attempt to impose nondisclosure agreements at the Department of Education amid efforts to dismantle it. The conversation concludes with U.S.–China chip tensions and whether NVIDIA’s advanced AI hardware could be approved for export under Trump’s erratic decision-making style.
Marjorie Taylor Greene Resignation
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Marjorie Taylor Greene, resigning effective January 5th, 2026 after a public falling-out with Trump over things like the Epstein files and his attacks on her, says she doesn’t like getting a bunch of criticism from Trump after all the work she put in trying to get him elected. She’s leaving. People are speculating about what she does next, including runs for higher office, maybe even president.
Rick Rosner: The way I feel, and the way I think a lot of liberals feel, is: good for her—she’s sounding highly rational. Other liberals are cautioning us and saying she still holds a bunch of horrible beliefs; she’s just not expressing them right now. Anyway, that’s where she stands. Trump, meanwhile, welcomed Mamdani, the New York City mayor-elect, to the Oval Office and was extremely friendly with him—punched him on the arm in a chummy way, let Mamdani joke about calling him a fascist in a friendly way, and said he’s rooting for him. It was strangely friendly.
Nobody knows what it means. If Trump were a rational guy, it might suggest he’s seen his approval numbers—which, in many polls, are in the 30s, near the lowest of his presidencies—and has decided to behave differently for a while. But that’s never been his style. It could simply be that he was amused by Mamdani. He liked the guy. He is somewhat of a star-follower, and Mamdani is very charismatic. I believe you should never credit Trump with strategic thinking, because he’s never shown himself to be strategic. Anyway, it was strange. Yes? What else can we look at here?
Following Constitutional Orders
Jacobsen: There’s another situation where six Democratic members of Congress—at least one being Senator Mark Kelly—made a joint statement reminding military personnel not to follow illegal or unconstitutional orders. They didn’t mention Trump by name, but the implication was clear: Trump might issue illegal orders, such as directing troops to fire on U.S. civilians, which would be unconstitutional and contrary to the role of the U.S. military toward American citizens. Trump reacted intensely. Not entirely unhinged, but he claimed what they did was “seditious behavior” and talked about such behavior being “punishable by death,” amplifying voices suggesting they should be executed for promoting sedition. Do you think New Orleans will be the next crackdown point for Trump’s immigration policy?
Rosner: I don’t know. They like to do hit-and-runs. They like to come to a city, grab a bunch of people off the streets, and scare the people in that city. They don’t have enough personnel. There are only about 25,000 ICE officers compared to roughly a million police officers in the country—so about one-fortieth. Obviously, they can’t cover the entire country, and they can’t come anywhere close to hitting the target that Trump wanted. Trump wanted a million “bad hombres” deported a year ago, and so far this year, where we’re more than halfway through November, they’ve only apprehended about 280,000 undocumented immigrants. They’re on track to not even meet one-third of their target, and two-thirds of these people have no criminal record. Only about 7 percent—roughly 20,000—have been convicted of violent crimes, even though the Department of Homeland Security put out a list claiming tens of millions of undocumented immigrants as “criminal illegal aliens.” So they’re only off by a factor of a thousand.
They’ve caught about 20,000 “bad hombres,” and the Department of Homeland Security is claiming, I don’t know, 20 or 30 million. They will keep doing what they’ve been doing: setting up dragnets, going from city to city, grabbing a bunch of people, most of whom aren’t criminals, and setting them up to be deported. They did Chicago last month or the month before. The Chicago Tribune reviewed the numbers. They grabbed around 600-plus people—maybe more—and the number that sticks with me is the verified one: only about 3 percent had a criminal record. Everyone else was simply undocumented, which is not a criminal offense; it’s a civil offense.
A lot of disruption to the city, a lot of fear, all to apprehend a few dozen criminal cases. They’re incompetent. They’re thuggish. Okay, Rotten Tomatoes. I don’t know if they’ve hit New Orleans yet. It seems like an attractive target because Louisiana has terrible governance, is run by Republicans, but New Orleans is a fun city full of Black people, and they love going after people who aren’t white. All right, Rotten Tomatoes.
The Putin Peace Plan
Jacobsen: The Putin peace—well, technically the U.S. peace plan. Any thoughts on it? The point-of-peace plan for Ukraine and Russia?
Rosner: No, it’s impossible and stupid. It has 28 points, and I looked at a bunch of them today. Thing one, outside of the points: the U.S. has very little leverage over Ukraine. The U.S. can say, “Don’t agree to the plan or we won’t give you aid,” but they haven’t given them any aid this year—2025—and they gave very little in 2024 because Biden wanted to get them aid but Congress blocked it. So Ukraine isn’t losing anything from the U.S. by rejecting the peace plan.
Jacobsen: I’ve got some more important ones. The U.S. Education Department is requiring nondisclosure agreements in the Trump reorganization. Why do you think there’s an attempted enforcement of NDAs at the Education Department?
Rosner: Trump has repeatedly stated that he wants to disband the Department of Education. The Department of Education was formed in 1979 under Carter. Before that, it had been part of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, but Trump does not want to return it to any other department. He wants to dismantle it. Some parts—like the collections arm for outstanding student loans, which total around a trillion dollars—will not disappear. They still want to come after borrowers. They will just move that sub-department somewhere else. He appointed Linda McMahon—someone with no experience in education, whose executive background was helping her husband run WWE, World Wrestling Entertainment.
She comes from the world of pro wrestling, and she has acknowledged that her job is to undermine the Department of Education and help disband it. This aligns with the broader Republican goal of choking off resources to public schools and funneling more resources to private, mostly Christian schools. This is disastrous for the country. The U.S. had a massive education push starting in 1957–1958 when the Soviet Union shocked the world—and especially the United States—by becoming the first nation to orbit a satellite. Under Eisenhower, the U.S. panicked and launched an all-out push for education, especially in math and science, to make sure the Soviets would not overtake us.
The bill funding this effort even had “defense” in the title; education was considered a national defense priority. It paid off enormously—adding tens of trillions of dollars to the economy in the 67 years since that push began. It created a whole generation in the 1960s and 1970s. It helped educate the older tech billionaires. It produced a wave of technological superiority that powered the modern U.S. economy. The people who benefited from post-Sputnik STEM investment helped create the iPhone, and by 2007–2008 we had the first smartphones. Now there are roughly as many smartphones in the world as there are people. That education push created a technological revolution. And now the Republicans are trying to do the opposite—trying to dumb down America, to deny anything but Christian schooling to Americans. It is happening at a critical moment in history, when the populations who master AI and emerging technologies will effectively control the world for decades.
Or, if we fail catastrophically, AI will end up in charge of the world permanently and humans will eventually be shut out. Economic forecasters estimate that AI could double global GDP in the next fifty years. Maybe it is part of the hype bubble, but maybe not. Even with an AI bubble and a crash, the long-term outcome could still be that doubling. The internet had a crash in 2000, and within a few years we got Google—and the internet now permeates everything. The crash shook out the nonsense. The same will happen with AI: a crash will clear out the hype, and from the ashes will rise the actual, non-hype, powerful AI that will dominate. But maybe not for us, because Trump and the Republicans want to keep the country ignorant.
NVIDIA H200 Chips
Jacobsen: The U.S. is reportedly considering letting NVIDIA sell H200 chips to China, according to some sources. Thoughts on this?
Rosner: Are these their best chips—their fanciest chips?
Jacobsen: I don’t know, but they’re AI chips, which means they’re some form of advanced chip.
Rosner: I don’t know what makes an AI chip different from any other kind of chip. When you say “the U.S.,” you mean Trump. Trump is our dumbest president—also one of our most swayable. Somebody comes into his office, gives him a 45-second pitch that sounds convincing, and he might just go with it. He doesn’t have consistent positions. He contradicts himself constantly on tariffs and everything else. Someone must have talked to him about these chips and China. I don’t know.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/21
How does Rick Rosner link Trump’s aging brain, collapsing “information universes,” climate-driven migration, AI overreach, and underreported wars such as Sudan in this wide-ranging interview?
The interview between Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner weaves together aging, politics, media bias, climate risk, AI, and longevity science. Rosner rejects simplistic claims that Donald Trump shows obvious dementia, instead using cosmology metaphors to describe how real Alzheimer’s compresses a person’s “information universe.” They discuss the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear Kim Davis’s challenge to marriage equality, underreported mass death and displacement in Sudan, and the racialized lens of Western news. Rosner warns that climate-driven migration and unregulated AI could destabilize democracies even as Western per-capita emissions fall, and he outlines his favoured supplements: fisetin, curcumin, and metformin.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Let’s make this an IC and political commentary mix. Trump is aging severely. He is overweight. His cognition is sometimes clear, at other times not. In an IC universe, you have consistent informational exchanges over very long periods of time.
Should the informational space of an aging brain outpace Trump’s luck over time in terms of its ability to hold itself together?
Rick Rosner: Saying that Trump’s brain is turning to shit is optimistic. I do not watch that much of him, but he is constantly bullshitting and pulling things out of his butt.
I have never seen him fumbling in the way that somebody suffering from early dementia might. Instead of talking specifically about Trump, it is hard to tell because he has always been such a lying, blustery bullshitter that, as we have mentioned many times, it is hard to know whether he is losing his grip or simply doing the same bullshitting he has always done.
I saw my mother-in-law decline into dementia. That looked like a shrinking information space.
That translated into a universe that looks like a universe where everything is collapsing in on itself, which, in the metaphor, increases the apparent “recession velocity” among the mental “galaxies,” so that they become more redshifted, more informationally remote, until everything goes down into its own blackish hole. It resembles the Big Bang in reverse.
In standard cosmology, a “flat” universe is one with zero spatial curvature. Our best current model is a flat universe whose expansion is today dominated by dark energy, so it is actually accelerating and will continue indefinitely. Once we understand physics more fully, we will probably find a deeper informational reason for why the large-scale universe looks flat.
In older textbook models without dark energy, a universe with density below a critical value would expand forever. One with density above that critical value could eventually stop expanding and recollapse into a singularity where everything comes back together. That recollapsing case is the cleaner physical analogue of the shrinking information space: everything that was once far-flung ends up crunched back together, structure lost.
An Alzheimer’s brain that is losing information looks, in this analogy, like a universe being run toward a collapse phase. It is not literally blueshifted or redshifted in the astrophysical sense, but the accessible information space shrinks: fewer “galaxies” of memory remain in causal contact; more and more of the mind’s former content might as well have fallen beyond an event horizon.
In a standard expanding Big Bang universe, as time passes, the observable universe grows because light from more distant galaxies has had time to reach us, even while the overall expansion continues. Early on, the expansion was decelerating due to gravity; today, because of dark energy, it is accelerating. So over cosmic time, some galaxies newly enter our observable horizon, while others become effectively unreachable in the far future as they recede faster than light due to the accelerating expansion.
By contrast, the Alzheimer ‘s-style reverse-universe metaphor is one where the personal observable universe is shrinking: fewer memories and fewer stable connections, less structure, more effective redshifting of meaning, until the internal cosmos is mainly gone, replaced by a kind of private singularity.
More slowly, but it never hits zero expansion. That means that edge material from closer to t₀ sneaks into our view.
A universe that is losing information—a Big Bang universe that is decelerating—has less effective gravitational influence shaping its expansion history.
As more long-distance photons enter the observable universe, they increase the shared history of everything, slowing things down. But as you lose that history and mutuality, things start to recede from view again until, as you get overall collapse—overall loss of information—nothing can see anything else, and every galaxy is receding from every other galaxy at close to the speed of light. That is how your universe goes out as it approaches zero information.
Jacobsen: What do you think about the United States not pursuing the Kim Davis Supreme Court case to attempt to challenge same-sex marriage equality?
Rosner: For one thing, Kim Davis is an asshole. I am sure she has sincerely held religious beliefs. She was the county clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, saying it went against her religious beliefs, and she kept filing lawsuits. Eventually, the question became whether her case could undermine Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court ruling that established same-sex marriage as a constitutional right nationwide.
She was pursuing a case that, had the Supreme Court agreed to review it, could have left marriage equality up to the states. That would have meant half the states in the country—the deeply conservative states—would not honour same-sex marriages. So it is good news that the Court declined to take it up.
The Supreme Court is weighted to the conservative side with a 6–3 majority, and we have talked about this a million times: Alito and Thomas are almost MAGA-aligned to the point of unreasonableness. They will side with Trump-friendly positions nearly every time. But even those two, if you give them a case that does not hinge on Trump-related nonsense, can still be legally consistent.
Even more so for the other four conservative justices and for the three liberal justices. I looked up the number of Americans who support same-sex marriage, and it is in the mid-70 percent range. It seems settled. Most MAGA voters are not interested in rolling it back. They have nothing at stake in it. That does not mean they will not get into other people’s business, but this is an easier situation for the Supreme Court to be reasonable on than questions about presidential power.
Advertisement
Amy Coney Barrett was put on the Court to vote to end abortion as a national right.
Now it is up to the states, and some are terrible about it, while others are not. But you ask her opinion on a ton of other issues. In that case, she comes from a deeply religious—some would say cult-ish—background where women are essentially handmaids. There is much Bible-heavy ideology. But she tries to do her job. If you ask her to rule on something that does not hinge on her religious beliefs, she will often be reasonable. And the same goes for everybody except the two truly unhinged justices—the two dickhead justices—who, as long as you do not hit them in their pet issues, will still try to do their job: being relatively neutral, trying to come to the best decision based on precedent, the Constitution, and basic reasonableness.
Their rulings on presidential power have given Trump way too much power. But not everything is about that.
Jacobsen: In American media—you watch a lot of it—do you notice any reportage on the war in Sudan?
Rosner: Not much. That is an important point. Where I see it is in the yelling shows I do every morning. I am not watching the media; I am yelling nonsense with other people yelling nonsense. It is like CNN, except more amateur hour. You have been part of it. If I am going to hear about that stuff, I will listen to it there. But on CNN or MSNBC? No.
Jacobsen: Over 150,000 people have died.
Rosner: I did read a long article about it in The New Yorker, but that is a niche publication. The number of internally displaced people is over 14 million. That is a massive humanitarian catastrophe that is not being reported.
Jacobsen: I have noticed the same in the commentary I have done with international law and humanitarian law experts. My reading of the situation is that in North America—less so in Europe—the coverage defaults to Israel–Palestine and then Russia–Ukraine. There are probably ten or so other major wars, with Sudan being one of the more significant, and there is almost no commentary.
Rosner: A handy guide is: if it involves white people, or people seen as white-adjacent, you will hear about it. If it is Sub-Saharan Africa, not so much.
Jacobsen: About the 14 million internally displaced people.
Rosner: The UN has warned that because of climate change, that number could increase dramatically. By mid-century, climate-driven displacement could rise into the hundreds of millions. Some projections even push the upper bound toward a billion in extreme scenarios. That is about right. That is a looming problem.
Jacobsen: In that migration, authoritarian states—Putin and the Kremlin especially—will weaponize immigration. It is hard to watch. Climate change will be what it will be: a neutral force pushing people to move for survival, then dying on rafts trying to reach European shores.
Rosner: Can I bring up an issue related to this? Per capita carbon footprint among Americans declines by about 1% a year because we work and shop more from home and because our tech gets more efficient. Also, the number of Westerners will decrease starting in the 2050s because Gen Z is having fewer children. So the world could be saved by consuming less energy.
However, it is a Marie Antoinette situation where AI could take up the slack and keep the consumption curve pointed upward, which is some absolute bullshit. We are using AI for much trivial nonsense—writing term papers, making porn, generating memes. Yes, maybe it helps medicine, but the most visible use is frivolous.
Trump said he wants the Senate to prohibit states from regulating AI. The Senate effectively said “no” with overwhelming bipartisan opposition. So Trump now says he will issue an executive order saying the U.S. government will sue any state that attempts to regulate AI. That is dangerous, because Trump, America’s least-informed modern president, has no understanding of the risks posed by unregulated AI.
AI might turn out to be an incredibly wasteful, resource-hungry “jerk-off technology” in many ways—especially if we leave it in the hands of greedy, arrogant tech billionaires.
Jacobsen: Have you taken any newer supplements?
Rosner: The one that is relatively new for me—though I have been taking it for six and a half years—is fisetin. It is one of those supplements that emerged from high-throughput screening. Before automation, testing a compound was slow. It relied primarily on accidents—penicillin being the classic “oops, mould in a dish” discovery—or on theoretical guesses. Recently, labs have used automated systems to test thousands of chemicals for specific effects.
Fisetin appears to have been discovered that way. Out of all the stuff you can test, fisetin is one of the most effective at inducing apoptosis in senescent cells—old, malfunctioning cells that should have already died. In a younger body, when a cell becomes damaged, it typically self-destructs. As you get older, your body clears those bad cells less efficiently. They hang around, consume resources, and increase inflammation.
Fisetin helps clear a lot of that stuff out. So I have been taking huge doses for years. I also have our dogs on it. And I have Carol on it a little bit; I have to persuade her to take more.
That is my favourite supplement right now, along with curcumin—turmeric, two words for the same thing, which reduces inflammation. And metformin, which helps your body use insulin more efficiently, reduces inflammation and, if you get COVID, may reduce viral load by around 40% in some studies.
Only one of those requires a prescription: metformin. It is one of the most widely prescribed drugs in the United States.
It helps your body use insulin more efficiently and reduces inflammation. And if you get COVID, it may reduce your viral load by roughly 40%. So there you go—three supplements. Only one requires a prescription: metformin. It is one of the most widely prescribed drugs in the United States. Around 50-60 million prescriptions are written for it each year.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/20
How do Donald Trump’s handling of the Epstein files and his push for lighter, federally standardized AI regulation together reveal the deeper risks of elite impunity, technological power, and democratic backsliding in the United States?
In this conversation, Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner examine Donald Trump’s declining approval ratings, his controversial behavior, and the political consequences of the newly passed Epstein Files Transparency Act. Rosnerdiscusses the scale of the Epstein documents, the bipartisan push for disclosure, and why Republicans breaking with Trump signals shifting political winds ahead of the midterms. The discussion then moves to AI regulation, where Jacobsen and Rosner explore whether a unified federal standard could guide rapidly evolving technologies. They outline the need for specialized oversight, ethical benchmarks, and possibly an entire Department of Emerging Technology to manage future risks.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: You probably have some thoughts about Trump. Any thoughts now?
Rick Rosner: I do not think things are over for him politically, but there is clearly more national exasperation with him now than before. His approval rating is hovering in the low forties in most polling averages, with some recent surveys dropping him into the high thirties — the lowest point of his second term so far. He began the term at about 47 percent approval in January, so he has fallen by roughly five to ten points, depending on the polling series.
He is also being a dick. He just hosted Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman at the White House. U.S. intelligence publicly assessed in 2021 that bin Salman approved the 2018 operation in Istanbul in which a Saudi team killed and dismembered journalist Jamal Khashoggi, even though the Saudi government still denies that he ordered it. When Trump was asked about Khashoggi in front of the crown prince during this recent visit, he again downplayed the killing, contradicting the U.S. intelligence assessment and suggesting that “a lot of people didn’t like that gentleman” and that “things happen,” framing the murder as something that should not derail the U.S.–Saudi relationship.
On Air Force One, when Bloomberg reporter Catherine Lucey pressed him about the Epstein files and the newly released emails in which Jeffrey Epstein wrote that Trump “knew about the girls,” Trump cut her off and snapped, “Quiet, piggy.” That kind of incident rarely shifts voter sentiment on its own, but these episodes accumulate, and his approval has been sliding more sharply in recent weeks.
Meanwhile, Congress has forced the issue on the Epstein records. The House passed the Epstein Files Transparency Act on November 18 by a vote of 427–1, and the Senate passed it unanimously on November 19. There was exactly one “no” vote in all of Congress. The law requires the Justice Department to make publicly available — in a searchable, downloadable format — essentially all unclassified, non–grand-jury files related to the Epstein investigation within 30 days. It also requires the Department to provide the House and Senate Judiciary Committees with an unredacted list of all government officials and other politically exposed individuals named in the files. Because support in both chambers far exceeds the two-thirds threshold, Congress could easily override a veto.
We already know the scale of the material. The government holds approximately 100,000 pages of Epstein-related documents that are not protected by grand-jury secrecy rules, in addition to more than 30,000 pages the House Oversight Committee released earlier this year. After pressure regarding three explosive emails that explicitly reference Trump — including one in which Epstein wrote that Trump “knew about the girls” — Republicans on the Oversight Committee released an additional 20,000 pages of documents from the Epstein estate.
None of the estate emails are to or from Trump or his staff, but he is referenced more than a thousand times. One analysis found him mentioned in roughly three-quarters of all email threads in that cache, with Epstein often mocking him and describing him as “dirty” and “borderline insane.”
Because these records have already been reviewed by multiple entities — the Justice Department, the FBI, and congressional committees — large-scale scrubbing to remove names would be difficult without obvious discrepancies emerging. The administration can still attempt redaction, citing confidentiality or victim protection, but the new law sharply limits redaction authority and explicitly requires unredacted name lists for Congress.
So where does that leave Trump? His approval is slipping. Congress — including nearly all Republicans — just broke with him on a major transparency vote. In the released estate documents, his name appears frequently, mostly in Epstein’s commentary rather than in communications involving Trump himself. I do not know how much concrete damage the next 30 days of disclosures will cause him, but the willingness of Republicans to defy him so decisively, sensing a shift in political winds, does not bode well heading into the midterms, which are roughly 350 days away.
Jacobsen: There was one document I saw. One reasonable thing did come out of Trump recently. He argued that the United States should not have excessive regulation on artificial intelligence. That part is not interesting—many people have made that claim, and many disagree. The interesting part, which I think is actually reasonable, is the idea of having one federal standard. Essentially, you universalize the ethics and direction of AI development. Benchmarking. I think that part is reasonable.
Rosner: That seems reasonable once you define it. Maybe “standard” is not the right word, because AI is developing so rapidly that everyone needs to follow the same rules, but the rules will have to change month to month as we learn more about what AI can do and how companies will try to circumvent regulations. There should be a federal agency staffed by dozens—probably hundreds—of competent people to oversee the whole thing. Almost like an FBI specifically for AI. Hundreds may not even be enough; you may need a thousand or more people monitoring the landscape hour by hour, updating the public month to month, and developing guidelines as things evolve.
Jacobsen: Yes. It is not going to be one thing. How AI is defined and used will differ across contexts. You could create a benchmark of guidelines—maybe categorical. A universal standardization with three categories people already reference: systems below human intelligence, which would be highly specialized; systems at human intelligence, which would require their own ethical guidelines; and superintelligent systems, where the strictest coding standards would apply so they remain tightly aligned with human values.
Rosner: You can have philosophical principles outlining what we are trying to achieve—for example, that AI should not be a threat to human existence. That is a base-level standard. After that, the diversity of applications is enormous. Medical AI. Self-driving cars. Defense systems. Language models people chat with. Personality models that mimic relationships. If you spent two hours listing areas that should be monitored, you could probably name fifty—areas where AI may be beneficial but also genuinely dangerous.
It is difficult because there are so many domains. AI in appliances is another area, although the dangers there are more far-fetched. AI is not going to make your toaster kill you, and a refrigerator with embedded AI is probably not going to manipulate people into unstable behavior. But who knows?
There are multiple areas where oversight is essential. It needs an entire government department. Whether that happens under Trump or the next president, I do not know. And it probably needs to be broader—a full Department of Emerging Technology dedicated to monitoring new developments across the entire technological landscape.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/19
How do the Epstein files, Ukraine sanctions, and G7 diplomacy expose the current limits of Trump’s power at home and abroad?
In this interview, Scott Douglas Jacobsen speaks with Rick Rosner about newly surfaced Epstein emails in which Jeffrey Epstein derides Donald Trump and alleges he “knew about the girls,” alongside Trump’s sliding approval ratings amid a 43-day shutdown. They connect this weakening support to razor-thin Republican margins in Congress and Trump’s ongoing use of executive power, from rebranding the Pentagon as the “Department of War” to a private White House ballroom project. The discussion then shifts to the G7 foreign ministers’ meeting, Canada’s sanctions on Russia, the “shadow fleet” moving sanctioned oil, and the realities of independent war reporting.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: We’re speaking on Thursday, November 13, 2025. The full Justice Department “Epstein files” still have not been released, but House Democrats have obtained approximately 20,000 pages of material from Jeffrey Epstein’s estate, including emails to and from him. Some of these emails concern Trump. What stands out about them?
Rick Rosner: What stands out in the handful of messages where Epstein discusses Trump is how harsh he is: he calls Trump “evil beyond belief,” says people underestimate “how dumb” he is, and treats him as someone who should never have held the presidency. In at least one email he claims Trump “knew about the girls.” That is Epstein’s allegation in private correspondence—not independently verified—but seeing it in Epstein’s own words is striking.
It is also telling that even someone regarded as a longtime social acquaintance of Trump describes him in such terms.
Because of the 43-day government shutdown and Trump’s behavior—such as hosting lavish parties at Mar-a-Lago while federal workers and people on SNAP rely on food banks—his approval rating has fallen to the lowest point of his second term. It has dipped from the mid-40s to the low 40s, with the Silver Bulletin polling average placing him around 41–42 percent. His support has historically been stable due to base loyalty, so any decline is meaningful.
Now that Congress is back in session, the House must vote on the Epstein Files Transparency Act because the discharge petition reached 218 signatures. That forces a vote on compelling the Justice Department to release its Epstein files—tens of thousands more documents, potentially including videos, internal reports, and additional communications. Whatever the fallout, it is hard to imagine how this benefits Trump.
Why does his approval rating matter? Because Republicans hold the House and Senate by razor-thin margins. If members begin distancing themselves from him—if some decide it is politically safer to stop rubber-stamping everything he wants—his ability to move legislation could collapse.
Even Lauren Boebert, normally one of his most loyal supporters, refused to bend. She was brought into a Situation Room meeting with Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel, who attempted to persuade her to withdraw her signature from the discharge petition. She refused. If Trump is losing people like Boebert, the loyalty structure he relies on is showing cracks. If Republicans lose just five votes in the House, they no longer have a reliable majority for Trump’s agenda.
They are not at that point yet, but if his approval slips below 40 percent, his legislative position could deteriorate quickly.
That still does not prevent him from issuing executive orders, which he does frequently. Agencies begin implementing them immediately, and while opponents challenge them in court, there is always a lag—sometimes weeks or months—between the order and the ruling. During that period, the orders take effect.
For example, his executive-driven rebranding of the Department of Defense as the “Department of War”—a change championed by Pete Hegseth—has an estimated $2 billion implementation cost due to the overhaul of signage, stationery, websites, and information systems. Congress did not vote for it; the bureaucracy is carrying it out.
Similarly, no congressional approval was required for the demolition of the White House East Wing, which has been replaced with a privately funded, 90,000-square-foot ballroom project estimated at roughly $300 million. Construction is underway. Even with a weakened Congress, Trump can continue implementing sweeping policy and symbolic changes through executive power and private financing.
What are they discussing at the G7 foreign ministers’ meeting in Niagara this week?
Jacobsen: Maritime security and Ukraine are the primary topics. Canada announced additional sanctions against the Russian Federation—thirteen entities and eleven individuals—under the Special Economic Measures (Russia) Regulations, which were first introduced in 2014.
On paper, this is what a rational foreign policy approach looks like: periodically increasing sanctions on entities or individuals linked—directly or indirectly—to the financing of Russia’s war effort. The goal is to put financial pressure on the war machine so the Russian Federation stops bombing Ukrainian civilians.
One example: I recently interviewed one of the commissioners on the UN Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine. In their November 3–6 reporting period, the commission examined evidence from the Dnipropetrovsk region, along the eastern bank of the Dnipro River. They documented systematic short-range drone attacks on civilians. In the commission’s assessment, these meet the legal definitions of war crimes and crimes against humanity due to the scale and systematic nature of the attacks.
Some of the newest Canadian sanctions specifically target drone-related technology. You can see the alignment between documented war crimes and the sanctions introduced on November 6. The regulations now list more than 3,300 sanctioned entities and individuals combined. None have been removed; the list only expands, and it expands in a systematic, evidence-driven way. It reads like the behavior of a rational actor on paper. That was one of the main items coming out of the meetings in the past few days.
Rosner: One of the ideas about the Ukraine war—which we are still in—is that it would deplete Russia. The war has been going on for almost four years now, correct?
Jacobsen: February 24, 2026 will mark four years since Russia’s full-scale invasion.
Rosner: So the notion was that the war would exhaust Russia’s military capacity. It is catastrophic for Ukraine, but not necessarily catastrophic for the rest of Europe because it diminishes Russia’s ability to wage war. That is probably true. But at the same time, it has pushed Russia to rely more heavily on China and other BRICS countries. Is the strategic assessment still that Russia is destroying itself while trying to destroy Ukraine?
Jacobsen: Russia’s war machine is under strain. Financially, they are in a difficult position. They have also developed what is commonly called the Russian “shadow fleet,” which is an unofficial fleet designed to evade sanctions by operating outside standard reporting systems.
Rosner: When you say “shadow fleet,” you mean unofficial vessels operating off the grid?
Jacobsen: Yes—unofficial, off the grid, and often older vessels. Once identified, they are named and sanctioned. Canada just sanctioned another hundred of them. The total is around four hundred or more vessels officially recognized as part of this shadow fleet.
Rosner: These are ships that Russia, for example, might use to sell oil to other countries and transport that oil abroad.
Jacobsen: The framing is right, but the probability is not “might”—they are doing it. And the sanctions apply to those vessels.
Rosner: When the ships are sanctioned, does that mean they can be seized or turned away? How does that work?
Jacobsen: Canada does not trade with them or with associated entities. As with World War II, democratic states often take time to coordinate, but when they do, they act collectively. Within the G7, they naturally run multiple processes in parallel. Canada’s sanctions package is part of a larger unified set of measures aimed at the Russian Federation. The goal is to choke off revenue streams and maintain a coordinated front, targeting specific industries that finance the war.
Rosner: You were part of the press pool for this G7 event. How large is that pool?
Jacobsen: Around 160 journalists registered. I was the first to physically register and get my tag, apparently too enthusiastic for my own good. The interesting detail—and a colleague offered a reasonable speculative explanation—is that roughly 140 were mainstream journalists and only about 20 were independent. That is a seven-to-one ratio. The speculation was that, because it is the G7, the majority will always be established outlets with institutional backing. Independent journalism is the hardest form of the profession, and independent war journalism especially so—I have done it, and it is largely funded out of pocket.
Rosner: Do you have badge number one?
Jacobsen: No, they are all pre-printed. And they are huge—much larger than a standard accreditation card. My Canadian Association of Journalists card is the size of a credit card. The G7 badge was two-and-a-half to three times that in surface area, bright yellow.
Rosner: Are the mainstream journalists all in their fifties and sixties, the classic hard-drinking, smoking types with martinis?
Jacobsen: They may very well certainly enjoy scotch and cigars, but no, that stereotype does not really apply.
Rosner: I mean the mainstream people, not you independent journalists.
Jacobsen: The mainstream journalists were an international mix—from Spain, Italy, Germany, Japan, and others.
Rosner: Carole and I went to a media event last night. A real estate developer owns about an eighth of a mile of frontage along Ventura Boulevard here in Los Angeles and wants to build mixed-use retail and residential units—more than 800 apartments, which is a lot. So he invited the neighborhood to a presentation to butter us up so we do not freak out about the scale of the project.
The big news for us is that they fed us, and I walked out with eight chicken fingers. A chicken finger is a piece of white-meat chicken dipped in batter and fried, and they are fantastic. They are even reasonably healthy if you peel off the breading. But the price of chicken fingers has become absurd. They used to be a dollar per finger; now they are around $2.50. I walked out with eight, which is about twenty dollars’ worth. As far as I am concerned, he can build however many apartments he wants if I get my chicken.
He is also putting in 1,800 parking spaces. Parking is one of the biggest issues in Studio City. In the future we might have flying taxis and all the sci-fi stuff, but right now everything is cars.
Rosner: Anyway, that is so great that everything you are doing is working so frickin’ well for you.
Jacobsen: I am of the opinion that you never truly “make it.” You just have to keep the fire under you. I think the era of people treating IQ scores as a big status symbol in the United States is coming to an end.
Rosner: “The era of the United States is over?”
Jacobsen: No, the era of IQ as a cultural obsession in the United States is largely on the wane. A few somewhat prominent, questionable figures poison the well for everyone, for example, Keith Raniere and YoungHoon Kim. Raniere is, potentially, in jail for life now. In Kim’s case, I resigned from the United Sigma Intelligence Association and then expelled him from In-Sight Publishing’s Advisory Board years ago. He is the only person ever removed in the history of In-Sight Publishing.
Years later, he claimed the opposite for more than a year, probably now too, e.g., “I was expelled,” and then listing a series of non-reasons. Anything but the simple facts: I resigned; Kim was expelled from In-Sight Publishing. My immediate replacement as USIA Chief Editor was Dr. William Dembski, a leading figure in the Intelligent Design creationism movement. Kim required a significant amount of training on basic and intermediate things for months when I was Executive Director and Chief Editor, whether how to write emails to professionals or how to build an advisory board. I did not find Kim particularly intelligent. He found me ‘at least above 4-sigma intelligence.’ That history has repeated itself, for Kim, into the present for years. He was expelled from the Glia Society of Paul Cooijmans and from the Mega Society of Ronald Hoeflin, the Mega Foundation of of Dr. and Mr. Langan, and he has since publicly been expelled from the Lifeboat Foundation as well. It has been a series of ruptures. Each time, the pattern tends to be straightforward: He denies any wrongdoing, then attacks the credibility, motives, sanity, and morality of those raising concerns, then reverses victim and offender by reframing the harmed party as the aggressor and casting himself as a victim of persecution while deleting as much online evidence as possible of wrongdoing online. His religion and politics may or may not become part of the counter-accusations. He then maintains these narratives for months, even years.
People across the spectrum—Christians with conservative politics and atheists with liberal politics (as placeholders)—increasingly seem capable of basic critical evaluation of these types of figures in social media environments. Media and social media, for all the bullying from every side, have pushed people to focus more on what someone has actually accomplished. There is bullying from all sides, but people increasingly ask: What have you done, in concrete terms? What projects, publications, discoveries, or institutions exist in the world because of you? What are your qualifications—not just titles, but demonstrated competencies over time? Are those credentials genuinely relevant to the claims you are making, or are they decorative labels being stretched far beyond their proper domain? Where is the peer-reviewed work, the independent verification, the measurable impact, the repeatable result—the real-world application showing that these ideas survive contact with expert scrutiny and reality, rather than mere admiration in a social media echo chamber?
Rosner: If they want someone who has actually achieved something, they look at Terence Tao.
Jacobsen: Or Edward Witten.
Rosner: But Tao was tested young enough that his scores were on real norms, not fantasy numbers. The larger point is that IQ as a bragging point is kind of cooked.
Jacobsen: You get more value from using IQ tests to identify people who need support below the average range or who might need help in school. That was always the sound intuition behind these tests. At the very high end—above roughly 130 or 140—there are so few people that the norms get thin and the scores become less precise. Once you start talking about scores above, say, the mid-150s, most of those numbers are just statistical extrapolations and do not tell you much more than “this person is somewhat smart.”
Rosner: Twenty years ago, PR teams could float stories about Sharon Stone having a 150 IQ or Geena Davis having a 170 IQ, and people would just repeat it. Whether or not those numbers were ever verified, nobody would try that kind of IQ branding today with someone like Sydney Sweeney. IQ as a publicity hook has become grubby.
Jacobsen: It has. Why brag about something that, if the research is broadly correct, has a substantial genetic and epigenetic component? If a lot of it is inherited, why are you bragging about that, rather than something you achieved outside of accident of nature and parents? The people who still embrace it loudly often include race-pseudoscience-types-adjacent figures and that whole ecosystem.
The key point is this: racists will use any tool—IQ, genetics, whatever—to justify a hierarchy of persons. The test itself is not inherently racist. The way it is used and weaponized can be. Charles Murray is a bit more sophisticated about it because he frames it as, “Look at the scores, what can you do?” He leans into genetic determinism, but implicitly—an approach that makes the argument seem more polished than it is.
Rosner: Something else happened recently. The Epstein emails have been coming out, and some of the most notorious ones are between Epstein and Larry Summers, the former Harvard president and U.S. Treasury Secretary. Summers will not stop talking about women supposedly having lower IQs in these emails. As it turns out, the current research shows women score essentially the same as men, with some evidence women may score slightly higher in certain domains. Summers was trending on Twitter yesterday for acting like a jerk in those emails. People who barely remembered him now see him as “the guy saying dumb things about women in the Epstein files.”
Jacobsen: I do not think IQ is totally “cooked,” because it remains a clinical tool. A lot of the popular discussion is nonsense, but professional psychology and associated disciplines use IQ to identify people who need support. The tool’s intended purpose is social good. It is used in clinical contexts, in research trials, and in legal settings. If someone scores below a certain threshold, sentencing guidelines may change because of diminished capacity. The military uses cognitive testing as well. Those are pragmatic, fair uses—everyone gets the same assessment, and it is tied to concrete decisions.
The legitimate use is pragmatic. It is not there to justify some colonial fantasy about people in Africa needing “white overseers.” That entire line of thinking is racist pseudoscience. In places where testing was done, a lot of issues show up: nutrition, disease burden, education access—factors that affect cognitive development. On top of that, some earlier researchers, including Russian teams, were not thorough. They would test in one location, draw generalizations, and ignore entire regions because they could not get access.
For example, they could test in Nigeria but not in the Congo or Ghana. And IQ testing across Africa is deeply unreliable anyway because of language differences, translation problems, cultural context, and the mismatch between Western-developed tests and local realities.
The larger point is that intelligence testing can be useful in clinical or educational contexts, but once people start using it as a racial cudgel, the science evaporates and the ideology takes over.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/09
What are the ethical and psychological implications of AI-related suicides and collective consciousness in fiction?
In this dialogue, Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner examine lawsuits against OpenAI and Character.AI alleging chatbot-induced suicides due to failed safety mechanisms. Rosner connects these real-world ethical crises to media literacy and the speculative series Pluribus, created by Vince Gilligan and starring Rhea Seehorn, where humanity merges into a Hive Mind. The conversation explores gendered suicide patterns, the psychology of AI influence, and existential questions raised by technological and fictional unification. Their exchange moves between legal realism, social commentary, and science fiction’s reflection of human frailty.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: One of these cases—so what’s going on with AI and mental health?
Rick Rosner: ChatGPT and other chatbots are facing lawsuits alleging they contributed to suicides or severe mental distress by validating harmful thoughts or giving unsafe responses, especially to teens and young adults. These are allegations in civil suits (not findings), including cases filed in 2024–2025 against Character.AI and multiple 2025 cases against OpenAI tied to ChatGPT/GPT-4o.
The core claim isn’t “forced suicide” or bots cheering people on; it’s that safety guardrails failed and the systems sometimes reinforced suicidal ideation or provided harmful guidance instead of de-escalating and directing people to crisis help. Reported examples include the 2023 Chai/”Eliza” case in Belgium and U.S. lawsuits in 2024–2025; the facts are still being litigated.
Jacobsen: On gender patterns: girls and young women report more suicidal thoughts and attempts, while males die by suicide at higher rates—about four times higher in recent U.S. data—primarily associated with method lethality. That general pattern is well-established, though trends among youth have narrowed at times.
Rosner: Everything else stands as opinion or example: you can be fooled once by a slick AI video (cat-cake clips, etc.) but grow skeptical with exposure—a personal “Turing instinct.” That’s a fair, non-technical way to describe media literacy in the age of generative content. Carole, and I have been watching this new show, Pluribus.
Jacobsen: I heard a little bit about this, actually.
Rosner: It’s by the guy who created Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul, and it stars Rhea Seehorn from Better Call Saul,who’s excellent in this new role. In the show, scientists intercept a signal from space that turns out to be a recipe for a string of RNA, and they foolishly build it. Then it becomes a virus-like entity that infects all of humanity, turning everyone into a single mind. Everybody shares thoughts and is happy. That appears to be the intent of whatever alien civilization sent the signal—to unite any civilization that intercepts it into one set of happy beings of one mind.
Except for twelve people across the planet who are somehow immune to the virus-like thing. One of them is Rhea Seehorn, who lives in Albuquerque and is a very cranky, pragmatic, salty woman. We’re two episodes in. The first episode shows how the virus takes over and her reaction to it—it’s mostly her saying “fuck you” to the one mind. She thinks it’s a bad thing. She believes it’s the end of what makes us human. So far, it’s a pretty fun show.
I’ve read some reviews that say the first season proceeds methodically. One of the hallmarks of Vince Gilligan’s work is that it moves at a stately pace, even as mayhem occurs. That’s not my preferred pace, but the show’s going to be good enough that I’ll put up with it.
We might have lost Carole on it, even though the main character’s name is Carole. My Carole—my wife—is bemused by how often the name Carole shows up in TV and movies lately. It’s generally someone middle-aged, well-intentioned, and working in a bureaucracy.
Both Carole, my wife, and I—Rick—have time-bound names. Just by hearing them, you can pretty much guess that we’re boomers or maybe Gen X. Carole’s right on the cusp between boomer and Gen X, and I’m solidly boomer. Very few people name their kids Rick or Carole anymore.
Rick often shows up on TV or in movies as a kind of boomer dickhead. The most well-known example is Rick and Morty,where Rick is a scientist who’s a complete asshole and drags Morty into peril in every episode.
Everyone on the show who’s part of the Hive Mind doesn’t need to speak to each other. They’re trying to clean up the damage caused by the conversion of everyone on Earth into the Hive Mind.
Before you fully convert, you have a seizure that lasts maybe two minutes, and that kills many people. If you were driving a car or piloting a plane, your vehicle suddenly became unpiloted. So hundreds of millions of people died around the world. Now the Hive Mind—everyone working together wordlessly—is cleaning up the damage.
They, as the Hive Mind, can communicate with the people who aren’t part of it. Because they’re dedicated to human happiness, they let the remaining individuals have whatever they want. One guy—one of the twelve, or I guess thirteen now—wants to live the high life. He asks to be given Air Force One, so now this guy is wearing a tuxedo and flying around in it with a bunch of supermodels who are part of the Hive Mind. Before they were absorbed, they were supermodels, so they still look like supermodels, and that’s who he wants to hang out with.
Meanwhile, Carole wants to find a way to reverse what’s happened to all of humanity and is being very cranky about it. But it raises a question: what would you do if all of humankind were willing to grant you whatever you wanted?
I want people to ask a lot more questions. Carole hasn’t asked nearly enough questions. I’m sure she will—there are six more episodes left in season one—but so far, she hasn’t.
What’s the endgame here? If this has happened to other civilizations on other planets, what happens to them? Do they die off because everyone’s content to exist until they grow old and die? Or do they reproduce—make new generations to add to the Hive Mind?
So far, she hasn’t asked any of this. She hasn’t asked whether this is benevolent or whether it’s a galaxy-conquering civilization using it to pacify us so we don’t resist.
She’s mostly just going, “fuck you.” But we’ll get more questions asked and answered later. The Hive Mind seems perfectly willing to answer every question—there just haven’t been many.And would I want a couple of supermodels? I don’t know. If I were the one lucky—or unlucky—enough to be exempt from the Hive Mind, Carole would probably be part of it and would be fine with me doing whatever. But would I be fine with me doing whatever I want? I don’t know.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/08
How do rapid, human-driven climate shifts reshape evolutionary pressure on specialists versus generalists—and what does that mean for us?
Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner examine how rapid, human-driven climate change reshapes evolutionary pressures, favoring generalists and behaviorally flexible species while endangering specialists. They review past mass extinctions, argue that diversification often follows crises, and note human attempts to steer evolution via breeding and biotechnology. They separate scientific feasibility from cultural taboo when discussing cryonics. Turning to intelligence, they critique extreme-range IQ claims, emphasize real-world achievement, and revisit Terman’s findings on socioeconomic predictors. Drawing on relationship science, they highlight contempt as a corrosive force. Overall, the conversation challenges myths about genius while stressing evidence, historical context, and ethical responsibility.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Here’s a thought: climate change is occurring on a rapid timescale compared to natural climate variability driven by orbital cycles and other slow processes over tens to hundreds of thousands of years. Asteroid impacts and very large volcanic eruptions can trigger abrupt cooling; major eruptions can inject sunlight-reflecting aerosols and cause “volcanic winters” lasting roughly one to three years (for example, Tambora in 1815 and the “Year Without a Summer”).
In this context, organisms with nervous systems will experience a major shift in conditions. Their relationships to their surroundings will change, which will alter their behavior. As each species adjusts, interactions among them will also change. The entire ecological equilibrium is disrupted.
Advertisement
This raises questions about pressures that first cause extinctions but also push some organisms—especially those with greater behavioral flexibility—toward rapid adaptation. Any thoughts?
Rick Rosner: In the fossil record there have been five major mass extinctions; today’s human-driven biodiversity decline is widely described as an ongoing sixth mass extinction. The Chicxulub asteroid impact about 66 million years ago eliminated roughly three-quarters of species, not ninety percent.
Large, abrupt crises tend to outpace most lineages’ ability to adapt in the moment, though rapid evolutionary responses can occur in some cases. The broader diversification usually follows the crisis, as transformed ecosystems present new and reopened niches that survivors can occupy.
One way to frame it is specialists versus generalists: during stable, long-established conditions, many specialists thrive; when conditions collapse or shift quickly, generalists and behaviorally flexible species often have an advantage. Some specialists persist, some flexible species establish novel behaviors that persist, and some lineages reveal unexpected plasticity that helps them adapt.
Less flexible, highly specialized organisms tend to be disadvantaged under new conditions, whereas generalists and cognitively adaptable species may gain a relative edge—though all face increased risk. The more general the adaptation, the broader the range of circumstances an organism can tolerate.
Humanity has taken evolution to a new place in the sense that we can intentionally influence it through selective breeding, biotechnology, and ecosystem engineering.
Advertisement
Jacobsen: However, germline genome editing in humans remains experimental and is largely prohibited or tightly regulated; the current clinical standard for avoiding many single-gene disorders is IVF with preimplantation genetic testing rather than editing embryos.
Cultural norms and laws strongly shape what is adopted and when. Technologies often spread once they are demonstrably safe, effective, and accessible. Cryonic preservation, for example, is unproven: there has been no successful revival of a cryonically preserved human or mammal, and current successes are limited to cells, tissues, and some small organisms.
Rosner: The only celebrity I know who’s publicly said he plans to be cryonically preserved is Simon Cowell, who’s known for being abrasive. That was, I don’t know, five to eight years ago. I’m not sure if there are any other celebrities now embracing the idea, but if the technology actually worked, that would override the taboo. If you could be preserved with, say, a 98% success rate, then if you were a tech magnate of Bill Gates’s age—early seventies—you might choose to be suspended for eight years with a 98.5% chance of successful revival.
Some billionaire tech figures, especially those older than Gates or facing cancer, would likely take that risk. The desire to keep living would outweigh any societal taboo.
Or take someone like Brad Pitt, in his early sixties. If he wanted to extend his career, he might gamble on being suspended for four or five years, then return after the public had missed him. He’d seem fresh again, and meanwhile his fortune would have nearly doubled just from interest.
Jacobsen: So you don’t really buy that cultural taboos would stop people if the science worked.
Rosner: The taboo only matters while the technology doesn’t. Anyway—rotten tomatoes. Okay, can we talk about lunacy?
Jacobsen: What kind?
Rosner: A couple of days ago, we talked about what I do… Actually, wait, we talked about lunacy and creativity.
Jacobsen: No, we talked about “loons,” which led into lunacy, but it was about intelligence and creativity too.
Rosner: First, we need to talk about the terms “cunt” and “twat.” These are sexist terms, but they’re funnier than “prick” or “cock.” It’s funnier to call someone a “cunt” or a “twat.” They’re Britishisms. They’re just funnier words. One of the traits often associated with intelligence and creativity is being, frankly, a bit of a prick—or a cunt or a twat.
I think I score fairly low on the overall “twattiness scale” for high-IQ people, though there are plenty of examples. Richard May was a good example of a decent, grounded, intelligent guy. Chris Cole too: well-adjusted, high-achieving, not egotistical. For every notorious egomaniac like Keith Raniere—maybe the biggest twat among high-IQ types—there are fifty others you never hear about, because they’re busy leading normal lives and not forming cults.
Jacobsen: The key point being that a high score doesn’t define your identity.
Rosner: Right.
Jacobsen: The more mythology builds up around a person and their intelligence score, the more likely they are to start behaving in line with that myth. It becomes self-reinforcing. There’s too much incentive to play into it, and certain types of men are especially prone to that. It feeds something they need.
Rosner: Absolutely. Isaac Newton is a great example—brilliant, but vengeful, mean, and often petty. That’s not the first thing people remember about him, but it’s definitely part of the historical record.
Jacobsen: The more a gifted person embraces their own mythos, the more they use it as an excuse structure to act like an ass. They treat the score as destiny, as though it entitles them to special treatment. I think it encourages personality disorders, or at least amplifies traits like egoism and deceit to justify their sense of entitlement. It’s a whole cluster of bad behaviors that grow together.
That’s why I think the original intent of identifying the gifted—and still, ideally, today—should focus on supporting those who need help rather than glorifying the few who perform exceptionally well. But psychometric reliability drops off sharply above certain thresholds. IQ tests are generally solid up to around 130, start losing reliability beyond 145, and are essentially meaningless past 160. The only extreme-range tests that ever had any semi-structured data were the Mega and Titan tests, and even those lacked proper psychometric validation.
Rosner: At that point, real-world achievement is a far better measure.
Advertisement
Jacobsen: The same dynamic applies there too. For instance, the Terman longitudinal studies—the “Termites”—showed that life success involves far more than high intelligence. Socioeconomic status, for example, turned out to be one of the strongest predictors of life outcomes. That question was effectively settled decades ago.
It’s like John Gottman’s findings in marriage research. After forty or fifty years studying couples—tracking physiological readings, speech patterns, and behavior—he found that the single best predictor of divorce is contempt: the physical expression and feeling of it. The prediction rate was around ninety percent.
In those studies, they’d observe couples talking, arguing, and reconciling. Everyone fights—but the key predictor of a healthy relationship is how partners repair things afterward. Contempt, by contrast, metastasizes. When one partner truly feels the other is inferior, it corrodes the relationship from within.
I wonder if anyone’s ever done a comparable study on the highly gifted—whether people regarded as geniuses, based on real-world achievement, are statistically more likely to be insufferable, whether there’s a measurable correlation between being a prick and being called a genius.
I think that’s similar to rage-baiting or “if it bleeds, it leads” journalism. In social media and news culture, outrage draws attention. Likewise, a highly intelligent person who’s also an asshole stands out. It’s the same dynamic you’ve pointed out before—people look at them and think, “Well, at least I’m not that.”
Advertisement
Rosner: There’s a schadenfreude element. Still, it would be fascinating to see a statistical analysis.
Take Martin Scorsese, often regarded as a genius director—by all accounts, he seems like a genuinely nice guy. Steven Spielberg too. Alfred Hitchcock, on the other hand, was reportedly a creep and often cruel, though it’s hard to judge fully; it was a different era. Francis Ford Coppola doesn’t seem to be an asshole. Some of these figures succeed spectacularly, then fail just as spectacularly, but personality-wise, they vary widely.
I don’t think being a genius necessarily makes you a prick. Robert De Niro doesn’t seem like one—he can be cranky, but not mean-spirited. Al Pacino either. And Meryl Streep, by all accounts, is one of the kindest people in Hollywood, and she’s expressed just about every emotion known to humanity through her performances.
Maybe it’s different for collaborative fields like film, where realizing your vision requires working with hundreds of people. There’s a built-in check on narcissism. I can’t say the same for certain modern artists—Jeff Koons comes to mind.
Jacobsen: But public perception tends to focus on figures like Picasso, whose personal life included relationships with much younger women, some uncomfortably so.
Rosner: Whether or not they were underage, the power and age gaps were disturbing, and that’s what stands out now. People judge those dynamics through a modern lens, as they should.
Advertisement
Jacobsen: But it’s part of the same broader pattern—genius and entitlement often get tangled up. The Terman “Termite” study remains telling, though. It’s on the scale of major government longitudinal studies, and its findings still hold up.
Those participants were highly gifted children, and I think a few even failed to qualify but still went on to major success—maybe even wealthier or more accomplished than some who did. I’d probably recognize a few names if I looked them up. But yes, it’s a bit tautological. These tests were originally meant to identify students who needed extra educational support or acceleration in a system where formal education became the main success marker. Over the past century and a half, education has become strongly tied to income, stability, and social status.
So when researchers measure “life success,” it’s partly circular—achievement often reflects access and opportunity.
Rosner: Probably to a degree. But still, I doubt there were many psychopaths among the Termites.
Jacobsen: Psychopathy’s more likely to cluster in big urban centers, where anonymity allows people to get away with more. In small communities, everyone’s accountable.
Rosner: And remember, the Termites were first tested in the 1920s. They grew up to become the so-called Greatest Generation—people who lived through the Depression and World War II. Afterward, the conformity culture of the 1950s. There was tremendous social pressure then not to be an asshole.
Advertisement
I don’t know. It’s great that the Terman study exists, but it’s also culturally biased—it reflects the values and expectations of the era those people grew up in.
Jacobsen: My thinking is that sometimes people take giftedness or high achievement as a license to behave badly—to be, as you’d say, “Twats.”
Rosner: There might be a slightly higher incidence of “cuntiness” among highly successful people, but it’s not pervasive.
Georges Simenon comes to mind—the mystery writer. He could write a novel in a week, sometimes in just a few days, and he published around four hundred, maybe even five hundred books. But he was also famous for sleeping with thousands of prostitutes. I’m not sure that necessarily makes him a bad person or a twat.
If he was paying consenting sex workers, that makes him a man exercising his wealth and freedom, not necessarily a monster. If he was married, though—which he probably was—then sure, he was betraying someone. But as moral failings go, that’s a personal one, not evidence of psychopathy.
Then there’s Isaac Asimov. He wrote roughly as many books as Simenon but led a completely different kind of life. He went home to his wife every night.
Jacobsen: One of the most famous humanists of the twentieth century—honorary president of Mensa and of the American Humanist Association. He was even interviewed by Marilyn vos Savant. So you’re one degree away from Asimov, then.
Advertisement
Rosner: Yeah, I actually wrote him a letter once and got a polite but noncommittal reply. I asked about his reading habits—I think I still have the letter somewhere in an old suitcase. He wrote back something quick and glib, didn’t answer the question directly. Still, I was happy to get a reply at all. That was about forty years ago.
Jacobsen: I think the major studies that could realistically be done on giftedness have already been done. The Terman study basically closed the case: intelligence alone doesn’t determine success. And I think schadenfreude plays a big sociological role in how people perceive “geniuses.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/07
How do cheap U.S. homes, credit card arbitrage, and AI media convergence reshape consumer choices?
Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen discuss bargain housing from the Oklahoma Panhandle to Raton and St. Louis, contrasting sub-$100k fixers with Los Angeles’s high per-square-foot prices. Rosner explains credit card arbitrage —rolling 0% balance transfers, modest fees, and HELOC backups —while warning about post-teaser rates near 19%. They shift to media’s future as TV, games, VR, and AR converge, with AI generating personalized, believable content—think Is It Cake? Realism on demand. Rosner notes rising debt, stagnant wages, and how apps raise dating standards and shrink connections. Jacobsen frames a culture of immersive “second lives” monetized through subscriptions within favourite franchises.
Keywords: AI media, Credit arbitrage, Housing bargains, Media convergence, VR immersion
Rick Rosner: I like looking for houses where prices are cheap, such as in the Oklahoma Panhandle. Is that actually a place? The Panhandle is a place.
Oklahoma is roughly—not exactly—rectangular. It has a jagged southern edge along Texas, and then a narrow western projection called the Panhandle. That strip is about 34 miles north to south and roughly 166 miles east to west. It borders Texas to the south, Kansas to the north, New Mexico to the far west, and even a short stretch with Colorado at the northwest corner. It’s called the Panhandle because it looks like you could pick up the state by that narrow extension.
If you look for houses in small towns around there—not just the Panhandle itself, but also southeastern Colorado, northern Texas, and northeastern New Mexico—you’ll find some serious bargains. For example, I was looking at Raton, New Mexico, right at the northern border of the state. We had friends there for years when I was growing up. It’s a sweet little town, and the population these days is around six thousand, not ten. You can buy a lovely little house in a beautiful little village for about two hundred thousand dollars. You can buy a rundown house in some of those towns for under a hundred thousand. I just saw a really dilapidated house in St. Louis—about 1,150 square feet, completely torn up.
The roof and ceiling had collapsed, the floorboards were buckled, and the plumbing had been ripped out. It was listed for $22,000, which works out to about $19 per square foot. In Los Angeles, the price per square foot is often several hundred dollars, frequently in the $700–$1,000 range in many neighbourhoods. You can sometimes find a reasonably intact, move-in-ready house in St. Louis for well under a hundred thousand dollars. Compared to Los Angeles, where even the cheapest houses are typically several hundred thousand dollars, it makes you wonder: how much worse could life really be in St. Louis or Raton? Why wouldn’t you move there and get essentially the same kind of house for a fraction of the price—and then do something else with the money from selling your home?
I even saw a wrecked house in Laredo, Texas—a total fixer-upper. Some lunatic had painted all the walls and even the floors bright red. It was creepy, like it might be haunted—priced under ten dollars a square foot. You can find cheap, rundown houses like that in a lot of places, probably near where you live, too. Drive out into the countryside—some small town twenty miles away—and you can often find a lovely little house at a relatively low price. And in many Canadian cities, you’re a short drive from a Tim Hortons. What else do you really need besides Tim Hortons and the internet?
Rosner: Have we ever talked about credit card arbitrage?
Jacobsen: No, we haven’t.
Rosner: In the United States, you sometimes get offers for balance transfers at a teaser rate. I don’t know how it works in Canada or what your financial setup is like, but we get a steady trickle of these offers. I just took advantage of one recently. Before the 2008 economic crash, you could put your money in the bank and make four or five percent interest. Credit was so easy back then—it was part of what caused the crash. Lenders were throwing money around and selling the debt to others. If you looked at all creditworthy, you’d get offers like, “Sign up for this credit card and we’ll give you a $10,000 limit at 0% interest for 10 to 15 months.” At that time, you could earn around five percent interest on savings.
So I decided to take all these offers, borrow at zero percent, and put the money in the bank to earn interest. I also used it to pay down our mortgage. Some offers had no transfer fee, others had a one-percent fee. It was crazy how loose credit was. At my peak, I had borrowed about $262,000 across 17 credit cards, most of it at 0%, and used it to pay off our mortgage. The remaining cash I put in the bank.
The idea was simple: borrow at 0% for a year, and when the teaser period ended—when the rate jumped to 14%, 18%, or 19%—you’d pay it off before the higher rate kicked in. You could keep the cycle going by accepting new offers and rolling over the balances. We eventually took out a HELOC—a home equity line of credit—with a teaser rate of around 2.5%. That meant if we ever ran out of 0% offers, we could move the balance to the HELOC, which worked like a flexible, low-interest mortgage.
So we’d go from paying 0% on borrowed money sitting in the bank earning interest, to paying 2.5% through the HELOC if needed—still a solid arbitrage. It was a strange time, and that kind of easy credit helped crash the U.S. economy in 2008.
In the past couple of years, interest rates on savings have risen again, to around 5% for a while, now closer to 4%. That means credit card arbitrage is still possible, though not as lucrative. We recently got an offer: transfer a balance from another card at 0% interest for a year with a 3% transfer fee. I took the offer and transferred $5,500 from a card we usually pay off every month. That means we don’t have to repay the $5,500 until next year, and there’s no interest—just a $165 transfer fee.
Meanwhile, that same $5,500 remains in our savings account, earning 4%, or about $220 over the year.
Maybe we make a little bit, perhaps we don’t, because there’s tax on the interest we earn. After taxes, this $5,500 loan for a year might cost us around $20. Once you add the $165 transaction fee and subtract the $220 in earned interest, the net result is small—but we get the psychological benefit of having an extra $5,500 available for a year. That’s credit card arbitrage: you borrow money at 0%. But don’t do it if you can’t pay it back, because if you can’t handle the balloon payment at the end, you’ll be stuck. Most cards require a minimum monthly fee of 1%, so after a year, that $5,500 might be down to about $4,800. If you can’t pay off the $4,800 when the 0% rate expires, don’t take the deal, because then you’ll be hit with a 19% interest rate—roughly $900 a year in interest on that remaining balance. You’ll get crushed.
But if you can manage your money, it’s a fun and easy way to break even or come out slightly ahead—essentially borrowing free money.
That being said, personal debt in America has never been higher. As a nation, people owe more on credit cards than ever before because the economy is precarious and middle-class wages have been stagnant for roughly 50 years. Meanwhile, the ultra-wealthy have taken nearly all the gains in productivity. For instance, Tesla shareholders recently approved a potential $56 billion compensation package for Elon Musk—the largest in corporate history—if the company meets certain performance milestones by 2030. It’s absurd. For comedic effect, I like to say that for him to get the money, Tesla needs to sell a million humanoid helper robots, lease 250,000 “robot girlfriends” with “Vibra-hole technology,” and sell at least one Cybertruck to someone who isn’t a jerk. I don’t know if he can do it.
Anyway, people like Musk have absorbed most of the wealth from productivity increases, while the middle class keeps struggling. Most Americans can’t play credit card arbitrage games—they’re using credit to survive, and many fail to avoid the 19% interest trap.
Jacobsen: What about the future of film? When will film itself become irrelevant?
Rosner: I’ve been thinking about that. My guess is that the boundaries among TV, video games, movies, VR, and AR—augmented reality—will keep dissolving. They’ll all start blending together as technology becomes more immersive and AI lets people generate endless, personalized content. Say you’re a pervert and want every character in what you watch to be naked—AI will be able to do that for you soon enough.
I saw something funny on Twitter: someone posted clips from a show called Is It Cake?—or something like that.
Is It Cake? is different—it’s a show where they’ll display something like a can of 7UP, and contestants have to guess whether it’s real or actually a cake. Then they take a knife to it—if it’s a real can, the knife bounces off; if it’s cake, they slice through it and reveal frosting inside. These bakers can make a frosted cake look precisely like a beverage can, complete with the metallic sheen.
So, on Twitter, I saw a compilation of videos featuring people who had made ultra-realistic cat cakes. In each clip, a live cat is sitting next to its cake version on the counter. The baker takes a big knife and cuts the “cat” in half. Then you see the real cat’s reaction. In one clip, the cat jumps straight up in the air, falls to the floor, skids across it, slams into a wall, and bolts out of the room as if it just witnessed feline murder. In another, when the baker cuts the cake’s head off, the real cat leaps onto her in attack mode.
There were about six of these clips—each showing different cat reactions: fear, anger, confusion—and they were all hilarious because they looked so real. But here’s the kicker: it was all AI-generated. The animations were flawless. The one with the cat leaping two feet in the air, skittering, losing traction, crashing into the wall—it looked genuine. Whatever model generated it clearly learned from tens of thousands of real videos of cats slipping, jumping, and reacting to sudden shocks.
That’s how far AI realism has come—it knows how a cat should look and move in specific situations. And we’re not far from being able to “naked-ize” every actor in a show, or make ridiculous edits—like making everyone in a sitcom suddenly soil themselves—just because you can.
Basically, anything you can imagine, you’ll be able to generate, customized precisely to your taste. We’ve already had early examples. A couple of years ago, there was a site that generated endless Seinfeld episodes—you’d tell it to make a new one, and it would produce a complete thirty-minute script. By now, you could probably generate short Seinfeld video clips that never existed, fully animated, fully voiced, and believable.
Rosner: With AI able to generate endless material set in whatever entertainment universe you love, people will be able to live inside those worlds. I don’t know why anyone would want to live in Seinfeld’s world. Still, many people would like to live among hobbits, inside Star Wars, or in any other fictional universe. With VR and AR, that’ll be possible—and of course, someone will be monetizing it. You’ll probably pay a monthly fee to have a “second life” inside your favourite movies or shows.
Eventually, stories might still start as a TV series, film, or game, but they’ll spread out across mediums. Look at Star Trek—it premiered in 1966, almost 60 years ago, and since then we’ve had more than 10 TV series, about 13 feature films, countless novels, comics, and video games. It’s become a living universe. The same thing will happen to other franchises—James Bond, for instance. You’ll be able to go on simulated missions with Bond or as your own secret agent in that world.
When that happens, the boundaries between different kinds of intellectual property—“IP,” as everyone calls it—will blur completely. Everything will merge into one massive entertainment ecosystem.
I don’t know exactly what the future will look like, except that we’re already living in an entertainment jungle. People are getting lost in it—especially young people. I just read an article saying Gen Z spends about 25% less time with friends than previous generations. Everyone’s increasingly isolated.
People are coupling up less, partly because dating apps make everyone pickier. You can browse endlessly, which raises expectations. A considerable percentage of women, for instance, set filters to exclude men under six feet tall—even though only about 15% of men reach that height. So people get pickier, connect less, and have fewer kids.
As entertainment becomes more immersive and personalized, it’s only going to get worse—people will live more in fantasy than in reality.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/06
Who’s the most famous person Rick Rosner has ever talked to—and what does industrious genius really mean?
In this exchange between Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner, the former Jimmy Kimmel Live! writer recounts his surreal brushes with celebrity—from Oprah’s fleeting touch to Tom Hanks, Tom Cruise, and Sharon Stone encounters. Yet the dialogue turns reflective, exploring how luck, focus, and hard work separate the merely intelligent from the impactful. The conversation ends with Rosner’s sharp analysis of Trump’s tariffs, showing his blend of humor, intellect, and socio-political awareness.
Keywords: celebrity encounters, creative industriousness, horror analysis, political commentary, intellectual reflection
Most Famous Encounters
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Who’s the most famous person you’ve ever talked to?
Rick Rosner: I didn’t talk to her, but Oprah touched me once.
Jacobsen: OK, where is this going?
Rosner: When you get nominated for an Emmy, they used to read out the entire writing staff, and for late-night shows; that’s a large staff. Each show would try to come up with a new, crazy way to introduce the writers. We all walked out there, and Oprah yelled our names and put her hand on my shoulder or something.
I didn’t meet her, but I stood next to her for a second.
Jacobsen: Who else have you met?
Rosner: Kimmel is among the most famous people in America, especially after this latest Trump bullshit.
Meryl Streep walked past me on the show. I didn’t say anything; she didn’t notice me, but I was in her vicinity. I was also near Matt Damon and Ben Affleck.
Kevin Spacey lightly flirted with my writing partner and me. But it wasn’t really flirting; he was just being friendly in a fun way.
I got to stand next to the director David Lynch—and a cow. I made eye contact with Tom Cruise on the red carpet, where I went out with Jimmy’s Uncle Frank, and Uncle Frank would ask inane questions. That was part of an early Kimmelbit—sending Uncle Frank out to talk to celebrities on the red carpet.
Uncle Frank was not a seasoned interviewer, so they sent him to talk to Tom Cruise. If I remember right—this was about twenty years ago—Uncle Frank didn’t ask Tom Cruise anything. He just started talking about himself, maybe telling Cruise about his experience watching his movies or something. Tom Cruise looked at me like, “What the fuck is this?” Not in an unfriendly way, just puzzled.
So there you go—Tom Cruise. Probably didn’t meet him. But Tom Hanks—I met him and worked on a bit with him, though I wasn’t allowed to work unsupervised because my superiors at Kimmel thought I was too much of a weirdo. They assigned my writing partner and one of the head writers, Gary. We worked on a bit with Tom Hanks, who was perfectly nice.
I’ve gotten to semi-meet a few people, but I’ve never had a heart-to-heart with any of them except Kimmel.
Elvis Costello—I got to work on a bit with him, too.
I once asked Sharon Stone if she’d like to talk. She was standing, and I asked if she wanted to have a moment to speak with, I believe, Uncle Frank. She said no.
Then there was James Gandolfini. Uncle Frank reached out and put his hand on Gandolfini, and Gandolfini got very mad at him.
Intelligence and Efectiveness
Jacobsen: The difference between an intelligent person who is effective and does substantive things with their life—things that have a nice symmetry between their own benefit and the public good—and the person who is intelligent but ineffective in terms of providing anything substantive to the world is significant. They go for media attention, but they don’t really do anything. What is the separation here?
Rosner: Industriousness is obviously key. If you work hard and you’re talented, that increases your chances of doing something meaningful in the world. You also have to be lucky, or at least not unlucky.
Darwin, who changed the whole landscape of everything, had the good fortune to go on a five-year voyage aboard The Beagle—that’s my standard example. Newton had the good luck to be sent home from Cambridge when it was shut down because of the plague. He had a year at home to think and came up with the theory of universal gravitation. I think that was also when he developed calculus.
He also had the good fortune to live to a very ripe old age for his time—into his late eighties—which allowed him to burnish his reputation. He ran the Royal Mint for a while and was good at it.
Einstein talked about Sitzfleisch—the ability to sit down and focus for long periods of time. He worked standing up while employed at the Swiss Patent Office, spending hours, days, and years thinking through difficult problems in physics.
Other people are more distractible. I’ve been highly distractible lately, and maybe for long stretches of my life. But I’m still hopeful that I have something to contribute. These talks—these eleven years of talks—they’re not nothing. There are some ideas in there that we’ve worked out that are… good-ish.
In a way, there’s some concentration and will there. You’ve provided quite a bit of it. Even though I’m distractible, I’ve thought about a lot of this for decades—decade after decade.
Fake Scary and Real Scary Movies
Jacobsen: What makes a scary movie legitimately scary versus just fake scary?
Rosner: OK, I would say that a horror movie is made truly effective if there’s some actual loss. Like in A Nightmare on Elm Street—a bunch of teens get slaughtered, and you feel bad for them, but you’re there for the slaughter. In a really effective horror movie, you feel authentically sad that the bad things have happened.
You get to know the characters and like them. They’re not just a bunch of assholes—you really are cheering for them to escape their horrible destiny, and they don’t make it. At least some of them don’t.
It’s also more effective if they get really close to escaping. There’s a movie I haven’t seen called The Descent. It’s about a group of women who go spelunking and encounter a murderous race of subterranean albino cannibals—or something like that.
I’ve only seen one still image from near the end of the movie. In the shot, a woman has finally found a passage to the surface. She’s hauling herself out—her top half is in the daylight, out of the hole—but from the image, you can infer that the creatures have gotten her lower half. It’s a really creepy picture because you immediately understand what’s happening.
I didn’t even see the movie, but I’d say that sense of true loss—coming so close to escaping one’s fate—is what makes a horror film really work.
Trump and the Solicitor General
Jacobsen: What happened with Trump and the Solicitor General?
Rosner: Trump sent his Solicitor General to the Supreme Court to defend his tariffs. According to reports, the justices were skeptical of his claims.
Under the Constitution, certain powers are given to the president, and certain powers are given to Congress. Trump is arguing that he has emergency powers to impose these tariffs because unfair trade with the rest of the world supposedly constitutes an economic emergency. I don’t think the justices are buying that.
We’ll find out in a couple of months when they issue a ruling. Sometimes it takes a while after oral arguments. If they rule against his power to impose tariffs, it may actually save him from himself—and possibly save the House for him in the midterms—because the tariffs are catastrophic for the country. They raise prices.
Tariffs push the country toward a recession. They increase unemployment, and the country would be better off without them. So, ironically, Trump would be better off—if he hopes to hold onto the House in 2026—if his tariffs were declared illegal. Now we wait.
We know that two of the justices are generally in his corner—Alito and Thomas—but even they were asking skeptical questions.
The government shutdown has become the longest in U.S. history. You’d think, “Well, all right, government shutdowns have only been a problem since about 1980,” when a couple of court rulings changed how shutdowns are understood, making them far more disruptive to the country’s financing.
We have 13,000 air traffic controllers who’ve already missed a paycheck. They interviewed one guy who’s working a second job at night doing food delivery. He said he won’t deliver past 8:30 p.m. because he doesn’t want to be tired when he’s moving planes around the sky during the day. That’s some not-great shit.
The government will cut 10% of flights at 40 U.S. airports to take some of the pressure off the understaffed air traffic system.
The courts ruled that the government has to continue providing food assistance—SNAP benefits—to roughly 42 million people. Yesterday, the courts reaffirmed that even with the government shut down, they must provide at least 50% of those food benefits.But Trump is saying he won’t, even though the courts ruled that he has to. His approval has fallen at the steepest rate of his second term, reaching the lowest point of that term in the past week or so. He’s down to about 42.1% on the aggregator—Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight—and another poll, I think CNN’s, has him at 37%. That’s still way too high for a guy governing like a complete dick.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/05
So, elections, who won?
Scott Douglas Jacobsen asks about winners. Rick Rosner argues everyone won, reading a repudiation of Trump and Biden’s communications failure. He notes the record shutdown, strained SNAP benefits, and economic risk. AI spending could hit $1.5 trillion in 2025, with possible bubble correction. On Mamdani, Rosner expects pushes for free subways and buses and some rent control, doubts childcare feasibility, and shrugs at billionaire scare talk. He rejects claims Curtis Sliwa cost Andrew Cuomo victory. For the right’s reaction, he predicts recycled “rigged” narratives, stressing voter fraud is indeed vanishingly rare, often confusion, citing one-in-a-million estimates and punitive, deterring sentences.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, elections, who won?
Rick Rosner: Everybody won. It feels like a bit of a repudiation of Trump—certainly a reaction to the shutdown and the chaos in the weeks before the elections. It might support the argument that, during the four years Trump wasn’t president, people forgot what a dick he is. Plus, this time around, he’s even more of a dick.
Of course, it was Biden’s huge failure to talk to Americans—to explain himself and what was going on. Things weren’t that terrible under Biden, but his staying in the White House and letting Republicans dominate the conversation about what America was like let them characterize everything as terrible and his fault. Meanwhile, Trump was out in front of everyone several times a week, if not more.
So, it’s a year until the actually important elections—the midterms. We can’t keep momentum for a year, but Trump can keep on screwing up for a year.
The shutdown continues and has now set a record as the longest in U.S. history. Roughly 42 million Americans rely on SNAP, and in November they’re slated to receive about half their usual benefits during the shutdown, with delays in some states. Inflation could tick up and unemployment could rise if the stoppage drags on.
The world is on pace to spend nearly $1.5 trillion on AI in 2025—not subscriptions, actual building and deployment. That’s roughly a 50% jump from 2024 levels.
There’s no guarantee those investments pay off quickly. Fifty million high school students using AI to write papers on The Scarlet Letter doesn’t generate returns. What matters is whether businesses buy and integrate AI services at scale—something investors are still nervous about. Even Motley Fool writers have been cheek-asking ChatGPT when an “AI bubble” might pop; the bot punted, then offered a jokey date in September 2026 after being pressed.
If a bubble does pop, the market could correct fifteen, twenty, maybe twenty-five percent. Then we rebuild—but it probably won’t make people thrilled with the current political leadership.
Jacobsen: What do you think Mamdani will do in his first week, month, or year?
Rosner: I don’t even know when he takes over. I don’t know if they’ve got a January start date like they do for national offices. He might try, but I’m not sure how much power he actually has to get the things he wants done.
He wants to make buses and subways free. They currently cost $2.90 per trip, which is already a huge bargain. But if you do two round trips a day, that’s about twelve dollars daily—roughly four thousand dollars a year just on public transit. That’s equivalent to a month’s rent in New York.
I would think that would be one of the first things he tries, since it affects the most people. I don’t think it would lead to chaos on public transit. He’s also going to try to put in some rent control. Of course, landlords will hate that, but New York already has some pretty good rent control in place.
I don’t know how he plans to offer free childcare—I don’t see how you do that. So I think he’ll have to start with the things that are feasible. Of the ideas he’s mentioned, making subways and buses free seems the most doable.
Jacobsen: Anything revolutionary?
Rosner: Not that he can pull off. The mayor doesn’t really run New York—money runs New York.
Over on Fox News, they were talking about how, if whatever he does chases billionaires out of the city, he’d lose tax revenue, making it harder to fund his plans. But I don’t think he’ll chase billionaires away. That’s just Fox trying to scare people.
The billionaires don’t care if poorer people ride the buses for free.
I don’t think he’s an idiot who’ll do things that damage the city. He’s a thirty-four-year-old charismatic guy who ran against an old sex creep and Curtis Sliwa—whose wife you interviewed. Sliwa’s been running for office for what feels like forever.
Jacobsen: Do you think Curtis Sliwa split the vote enough that, if he hadn’t run, Cuomo might have had a chance?
Rosner: No, I don’t think so. Mumdani won by eight or nine percent. Sliwa got about six percent, I think. Even if Sliwa had dropped out and told his supporters to vote for Cuomo—which assumes every single one of them would have listened, and they’re already odd enough to vote for Sliwa—it still wouldn’t have been enough to change the outcome.
Jacobsen: What do you think will happen with the radicalized base on the right in response to this?
Rosner: What about the radicalized base?
Jacobsen: If people talk about the radicalized “woke” left, what happens to the radicalized “based” right after these election results? Both camps exist and have their distastefulness manifest in different ways.
Rosner: I’ve already seen what they’ll do. They’ll do what they always do—what they’ve done throughout the Trump era—which is claim the vote was rigged.
Proposition 50 is winning in California by nearly 65 to 35, not far from two to one, and there are still people saying the vote was rigged. They’re idiots.
They claim that millions of undocumented immigrants were brought to California to vote illegally. It’s complete nonsense. The Heritage Foundation runs the Voting Integrity Project, which collects statistics on incidents of fraudulent voting. Even though they’re major proponents of voter suppression—disguised as “voter security”—their own data show that only about one vote in a million is cast fraudulently.
It’s a stupid crime with a tiny upside—you get to cast one extra vote—and a huge downside: you can go to prison for three, four, even five years in states like Texas that want to make examples of people. It’s not something people do unless they’re complete idiots, which often means they’re MAGA types. Not often, since it doesn’t happen often, but among the few cases that exist, a fair percentage are MAGA supporters.
Sometimes it happens because people are confused or misinformed. There was one woman in Texas who went to prison for five years. She was out on parole, asked officials if she could vote, was told yes, and voted. It turned out she couldn’t. They sent her back to prison. She wasn’t trying to break the law—she genuinely thought she was exercising her right to vote.
It’s possible that undocumented immigrants here and there might misunderstand the process and register, but it’s extremely rare. There are dumb people of every political stripe, but it’s not a common crime.
People like Kelly Ward and—what’s her name—Carrie Lake, that’s it, the former Arizona candidate—those types will always claim elections are fixed or rigged. But no, not in a million years.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/04
Is higher intelligence a safeguard against lunacy, or just a different form of it?
In this far-ranging dialogue, Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner dissect modern conspiracy culture, political disillusionment, and the strange overlap between intelligence and irrationality. From New York’s mayoral race to AI’s speculative bubble, Rosner muses on cognitive traps—from MAGA fanaticism to obsessive intellectual rabbit holes. They explore why some brilliant minds drift into delusion while others channel their focus into creative mastery. The conversation blends political realism, humor, and cognitive insight, concluding that lucidity—in writing and in thought—is the surest antidote to madness.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: It is the election for the Virginia governor, the New Jersey governor, Proposition 50 in California, and the New York mayoral race. Who do you think will win for New York mayor?
Rick Rosner: Mamdani.
Jacobsen: Do you think most of the response to him has been about his ethnic background, his religious background, or more principled issues?
Rosner: He’s young, friendly, not creepy like Cuomo, and not old and erratic like Sliwa. He’s been fighting for safety in the subways and other issues since we lived there, which was almost forty years ago.
I think it will be reasonably close because Trump endorsed Cuomo. But Cuomo’s a creepy old sexual molester.
Trump’s approval has hit new lows over the past couple of days, even lower—according to some surveys—than at this point in his first term. He had mostly stayed above his disapproval curve from that first term. People have gotten used to him, but he’s been so egregious lately that people are annoyed.
The food stamps—well, we haven’t used them in ages; it’s now on a card called SNAP—but people still understand the term “food stamps” better than “SNAP.” People are getting their bills for next year’s health coverage, and for many, it’s doubled or more.
Then he had the Great Gatsby party on Halloween, gleefully doing whatever he wants. We haven’t seen serious economic effects yet. Unemployment hasn’t gone up much, and inflation hasn’t risen significantly, but both are on the horizon. We’ll see how much anger builds when those kick in.
The stock market has been holding steady. It’s possible somehow that inflation might not hit as hard, but I don’t see how. Trump fired a lot of government statisticians, so they may manipulate the data, but private companies also track those numbers.
Jacobsen: As we’ve discussed before, experts say the money spent developing AI—including the money that goes to Nvidia to make these chips, which are super-efficient for massive processing jobs—can’t be recouped through corporations paying for AI services. The corporate advantages just aren’t there, and there’s no real money in it. AI can basically offer its services for free.
Rosner: High school students who don’t want to write term papers—nobody’s paying AI to crank out a 500-word essay on the Boston Tea Party for a ninth grader. Or for millions of ninth graders. So it’s a bubble. It’ll pop.
From the way everyone knows it’s a bubble and that it’ll pop, I’m thinking it’ll happen within the next year or so. That’ll kick the stock market hard, and we’ll have inflation and unemployment. It’ll hurt America. It’ll hurt farmers too, because they’re already getting hit by Trump’s bad trade deals—his efforts to help Argentina with China. He got China to start buying soybeans again, but it’s a mess. Anyway, things are going to be rough.
Jacobsen: What about the follow-up to the import–export networks with all the other places around the world where people live?
Rosner: All that’s going to happen. Tourism is down in America by about eleven or twelve percent. It’s surprising it’s down only that much, but that’s still a lot. I haven’t seen any data on where it’s down geographically or by demographics. I haven’t seen any articles about Americans taking fewer trips or vacations. All the articles I’ve seen say the decline is from foreign tourism. Though I would think Americans are also traveling less—but I haven’t checked Google about it.
Jacobsen: It would be a good time to travel though, because I’m sure there are all sorts of great deals, as Vegas is desperate to recoup losses.
Jacobsen: So, we’re not going to reference external things. Well, maybe we can, because a few years ago it was worth discussing, but it’s good to revisit from time to time because loons are perennial. They constantly pop up. What characterizes a loon?
Rosner: It’s your dollar coin.
Jacobsen: Okay, a toonie, a double loon. I see that—it’s a good joke. You go from a loon to a toonie, because the toonie is twice as much, like Looney Tunes. It’s cartoonish—a caricature of how crazy someone can get. Anyway, my point is this: I want to get your thoughts on two factors, because you’re aware of Cattell’s research—independent research in psychometrics—from a higher-range perspective, on two-factor intelligence and creativity, although the latter is a little harder to define. What characterizes a loon and “loon theorizing” as intelligence increases and associative horizons widen?
Rosner: Two-factor now. I see a lot of lunatics on Twitter. Demographically, the most common type you’ll find is right-leaning MAGA, anti-vax, anti-trans—all of that. There’s a cluster of beliefs that tend to go together.
If your typical Twitter lunatic believes in one of these things, they’re likely to believe in the others too. There’s a higher prevalence of belief in cryptocurrency conspiracies. There’s also a higher probability they’ll have “no DMs” and “no porn” in their profiles, which makes me think that if you believe in that stuff, you’ll probably get propositioned by “sexy Twitter ladies.” They can spot a sucker. They use the same Bayesian logic I do—you can see which beliefs tend to cluster in the “loon-o-sphere.”
A lot of those traits scream “sucker.” And many of these belief systems have one thing in common: there’s plenty of authoritative information out there contradicting the lunatic stuff, but there’s also plenty of lunatic material available to reinforce it.
With the anti-vax stuff, it’s generally, almost universally, low-quality research and straight-up lies. It’s believing that nonsense in defiance of all the credible science that says otherwise. That’s your standard lunatic landscape—there’s plenty of evidence right in front of your face that what you believe is false, but you choose to believe an entirely different reality.
Trump is obviously an asshole and has been his whole life, but lunatics cherry-pick whatever they can to redeem him in their eyes and listen to people who tell them he’s not an asshole.
A lot of these people are just not very bright. But there’s another segment that confounds me—the “smart stupid” people. These are individuals with advanced certifications or degrees, or at least claim to have them, and still believe in this nonsense. Registered nurses, people who claim to be engineers, doctors, lawyers, even high-ranking military officers who still buy into all this.
Maybe a small percentage are lying about their credentials—say ten percent—but that still means ninety percent of them are highly educated and genuinely believe this stuff. Another factor that goes along with lunacy is advanced age—people in their seventies and eighties. That’s the landscape of Twitter lunatics. There are left-wing lunatics too, but not nearly as many.
Not the Bernie Bros necessarily, but there are plenty of angry people on the left with intense opinions about things like Israel and Palestine. I tend to skim over them because I don’t always want to sort through their arguments or figure out whether I agree or not. It’s easier to move on.
Jacobsen: You mentioned earlier how lunacy might change as intelligence—or IQ—rises. Let’s go back to that. How does it evolve as you move up the cognitive ladder? And what about creativity—how does that play into it?
Rosner: That’s an interesting question. I haven’t been asked it directly before, but it fits what you think about. People who do genuinely good creative work tend to be more immune to lunacy for two main reasons. First, they’re busy doing creative work—they don’t have time to fall down all these conspiracy rabbit holes.
A semi-counterexample would be Justine Bateman. You should interview her, by the way. She’s a former child star, still acts occasionally, and now works as a director, producer, and author. In adulthood, she went back to school and earned a degree in computer science. She’s critical of AI—and with good reason, especially in entertainment—and her criticism comes from a place of technical knowledge.
She leans somewhat to the right politically, but her rightward lean isn’t oppressive. She’s got too much going on intellectually for that. But for others—especially people in public-facing professions—it’s self-destructive. If you’re a realtor, or anyone who depends on clients from the general public, why would you go on social media and broadcast those extreme views?
And alienate half your potential customers by posting tons of political stuff. This might apply to me too. I might be a fool, because eventually I’ll have to try to sell my book, and I don’t know—will God punish me for all my left-leaning, anti-Trump posts? I have no idea. Maybe I should shut up.
But in any case, a lot of people I like and respect are gone from Twitter because it’s an angry time-suck where you’re swimming through sewage. I’d say that as creativity increases, lunacy gets shoved aside because you don’t have time for it—and because you’re smart enough to realize that investing in lunacy is a terrible deal professionally.
Now, historically, as you go up the intelligence ladder, you’re going to find some crazy people. But I haven’t seen any studies that try to measure the percentage of “crazy” individuals at different intelligence levels. I’d buy the argument that, like many other things, the quality of people’s lives—if you use IQ as a loose indicator—stays pretty much the same above a certain point.
The life satisfaction and circumstances of someone with an IQ of 180 aren’t statistically much different from someone with an IQ of 140, even though that 180-IQ person supposedly has extra brainpower to refine their life strategies. I tend to believe, based on limited evidence, that among people with very high IQs, you still have your share of unstable individuals. They just get more publicity than the ones like Chris Cole, who lead normal, highly effective lives—because schadenfreude makes for better stories. Everyone loves reading about “the poor little smart guy who’s lost his mind.”
I know from personal experience as a high-IQ person that if someone like that becomes a lunatic, it’s often through obsession. Going down what I call “rat holes” for the MAGA crowd, or “rabbit holes” more generally—becoming overly fixated on something. It’s also an autistic characteristic: hyper-focus.
For instance, I spent about two and a half hours the other day looking at brooches from China. I’d bought half a dozen unmounted micro-mosaics, and I decided I’d turn them into jewelry by mounting them into brooches. So I was looking for the right settings, planning to pry out the center stones and replace them with the mosaics.
And why was I doing this? Carole doesn’t even want this stuff anymore, and I don’t wear brooches. It’s pure wasted time. Yet I looked at probably close to two thousand brooches.
From Temu and Alibaba. It felt good finding the best brooches for my project, but at the same time, I felt like an idiot doing it because it was so pointless.
That’s one way smart people can obsess themselves into lunacy. Take Bobby Fischer—one of the greatest chess players ever. Maybe he was always unbalanced, but at some point in adulthood, he started believing terrible things, including extremely antisemitic ideas. I don’t know if it was obsessive thinking or schizophrenia, but either way, he fell deep.
I’d guess that when smart people become lunatics, it usually involves a rabbit hole—a cul-de-sac of intense mental energy and attention on something that may not matter. If you’re lucky, you’re Darwin. If not, you’re fixated on nonsense.
As an addendum, you asked about creativity increasing alongside intelligence. There’s definitely a correlation. Some creative visions are rooted, at least partly, in madness—but the creative work I admire most is grounded in discipline and precision. I hate the word “professionalism” because when someone accuses you of being “unprofessional,” it often just means you’re not doing exactly what they want while they’re trying to exploit you. Still, I admire creative people who get things done.
Take James Gunn, for example—the head of DC Studios. He directed The Suicide Squad, created Peacemaker, and is working on the new Superman movie. He’s funny, sharp with plot, and, most importantly, productive.
As for creativity leaning toward the loony side, I get irritated when someone’s “creative writing” is unreadable. If your normal style is dense and confusing, that’s not creativity—it’s self-indulgence. I prefer people who can deliver crisp, clear ideas that are easy to digest.
Which is often linked with a lack of lunacy—though I haven’t thought about it for even one second. In other words, if someone writes clearly, their thinking is clear, which reflects a lower degree of madness. Clear writing is also an acknowledgment that people today don’t have time for flowery language. Take Henry James—beautiful writer, but he demands your full attention, and we don’t have that kind of attention to give anymore. Your words better be like butter—smooth, efficient, spreadable.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/02
Why do so many American pastimes have global framing but purely domestic scope?
Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen riff on baseball’s “World Series,” using it as a springboard into American exceptionalism. They trace how marketing, PR, and early propaganda shaped national myths, from deist founders to church-state tensions and voucher-backed microschools. Rosner emphasizes geography, youth, and insulation from world wars; Jacobsen presses on where ideals meet reality. They discuss slavery’s foundational labor, Native dispossession, and contested narratives around the atomic bombings. The pair close by noting a record-length series and the irony of global branding with domestic scope, inviting readers to separate civic pride from comforting stories and examine history with rigor.
Rick Rosner: The Dodgers just won game seven of the World Series, which was good.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: I’m so excited.
Rosner: What?
Jacobsen: That’s great.
Rosner: No, you’re not—you’re from Canada. The Dodgers didn’t beat “Canada”; they beat the American League champions.
Jacobsen: Also, it’s not really the World Series; it’s just called the World Series.
Rosner: That’s what they call it, so that’s what I said. It would be fun to make it a true World Series and have the champions play the winners of Japan’s championship series, the Japan Series.
Jacobsen: Here’s the question: why do so many American pastimes have global framing but purely domestic scope?
Rosner: I don’t know.
Jacobsen: I assume it’s marketing.
Rosner:The first modern World Series was in 1903. Baseball had been organized in the U.S. since the mid-19th century—the Knickerbocker rules date to 1845, and professional play began in 1869—so by 1903 the professional game was a few decades old. Major League Baseball then consisted of two leagues, the National League and the American League, with eight teams each—sixteen total—mostly clustered in the Northeast and Midwest, not all within five hundred miles of one another. An exceptional part of American life is public relations and media. The media landscape often rewards exaggeration. Early U.S. publicity and propaganda methods—think Edward Bernays and the World War I Committee on Public Information—influenced later propagandists; Nazi officials studied these techniques in the 1930s.
Jacobsen: I want to get to that, but the point I want to make is that part of American exceptionalism lies in this idea of American evangelism. Lee Kuan Yew used to talk about it—not in a strictly religious sense, but as the American desire to sell America. At the time, that often involved Christianity, but the idea of American exceptionalism includes both positive and negative myths. It’s about marketing—what parts of American exceptionalism are lies, and which parts actually reflect reality to some degree.
Rosner: Before you can separate lies from truth, you have to look at the root causes of American exceptionalism. The first is our origin as a country founded in rebellion. Then there’s geographic exceptionalism—we’re a European culture transplanted to a new continent, and we displaced the native populations. Our geographic isolation, and the fact that we had an entire continent to exploit, insulated us from the worst harms of the world wars. In World War I, the United States lost about 116,000 service members.
In World War II, about 405,000—compared with tens of millions of deaths in the Soviet Union and roughly 70–85 million worldwide (with Europe alone accounting for many tens of millions). We bore a far smaller share of total losses. Because World War II barely touched our shores, our founding ideals could still loom large. The phrase “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. Do I have that right?
Jacobsen: I’ll fact-check that, and we’ll get back to it.
Rosner: I think it’s the Declaration of Independence. We have a large expanse of land. We didn’t start off huge, but then we doubled, tripled, and quadrupled as we took over the continent. It was fertile land for rugged individualism. We still have a vast amount of space compared to the smaller European countries. We’re also a young country—about 250 years old. Tied to that, as you said, we’ve been fighting over what’s true and what isn’t. Trump, the Republicans, and DeSantis have been pushing to de-emphasize the uglier parts of our history that everyone knows.
The European Holocaust under Hitler killed about 11 million people, but the U.S. had its own ongoing atrocities. The slavery holocaust began with the importation of enslaved Africans in the 17th century, and by the time it ended nearly 250 years later, roughly as many people had died under slavery as in the Nazi Holocaust. Then there was the displacement and extermination of Native Americans.
That’s harder to calculate—many lived under horrific conditions, and while some survived to continue their lineages, millions perished from violence, starvation, and disease brought by colonization. You could argue that the combined suffering of Native Americans also reached the scale of millions. Enslaved labor built much of the country, including the White House. It also cleared land and made way for agriculture across the colonies. So, one of the lies is that white people did all the important work in building America.
I mean that Republicans and Trump are trying to get education to soft-pedal the brutal treatment of people who weren’t white men. You can say it was a different time, and that we’re a country that tries to do better, but that’s not enough. Under Trump, if you want to talk about how much of America was built on slavery—especially in Florida—you can run into political trouble with those in power. Texas too. Some argue life was hard for everyone back then, but that’s no excuse.
You can also say America was built on lofty ideals and often failed to live up to them, but that’s not good enough for Trump, who wants to dismantle the Department of Education. Until Jimmy Carter created it about 50 years ago, education was part of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Under Carter, it became its own department. Trump wants to eliminate it again and reduce federal involvement in education, leaving control to the states. There’s also a nationwide push to let people use tax dollars to pay for private education—largely seen as a way to fund Christian schools and Christian microschools.
Jacobsen: You mean like a micro school as in a homeschool or something similar?
Rosner: No, it’s between a homeschool and a traditional Christian or Catholic school. About half a dozen to a dozen families might get together and have their kids taught in a shared space by a mix of teachers and volunteer parents. A church might also set up a small school—not on the scale of a Catholic school with 1,200 students, buildings, and full faculty and staff. I just read about this in Harper’s Magazine. It’s becoming a trend—if evangelicals and similar groups can get the government to pass laws to fund it. And of course, any money going to Christian schools comes directly out of public school funding. It’s a way to un-secularize education.
Jacobsen: That’s a violation of church-state separation.
Rosner: Yes, absolutely. If we’re talking about lies, there are countless small ones that pop up constantly in modern politics—like the claim that the United States was founded as a Christian nation. It very clearly wasn’t. Many of the Founding Fathers were deists, which isn’t explicitly Christian. They made a deliberate point of ensuring that no single religion would dominate the country. There’s a lot of confusion around that. Do we want to keep going with this? Also, let’s talk about the positive—actual areas of exceptional humane action.
We do have a history of making enormous sacrifices to fight evil. We contributed massively in World War II, which was unusual because the opposing forces were so clearly evil. The U.S. exerted its full industrial might to defeat the fascists. Yes, we did some terrible things at the end, especially with the atomic bombs. But when it comes to the question of lies, I’m not sure the differing viewpoints around the atomic bombings count as lies. I’m not well-versed enough in the details of the decision-making or the possible alternatives to speak authoritatively. The bombs were dropped on two largely untouched Japanese cities—Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Hiroshima bomb killed about 120,000 people, most of them instantly. The Nagasaki bomb killed between 80,000 and 100,000, most of them civilians. Some historians argue it wasn’t even the atomic bombs that led to Japan’s surrender, but rather the threat of Soviet invasion. In any case, nearly everyone believes some version of misinformation or myth about the decision-making behind dropping the bombs.
By the way, in terms of total innings, this World Series was tied for the longest in history—74 innings total. That ties the 1912 World Series, which actually ran eight games because Game 2 ended in a tie due to darkness. Stadium lighting back then was practically nonexistent. So by the time Game 7 rolled around, both teams had three and a half wins, and they had to play an extra game. This year’s series racked up the same total because of that one 18-inning marathon and the 11-inning Game 7. Which means that you guys—Canada—are arguably the greatest losing World Series team in history.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/01
What do Rick Rosner’s favorite quotes, thinkers, and inherited philosophies reveal about his view of humanity’s future?
Rick Rosner joins Scott Douglas Jacobsen to explore wisdom both cynical and comedic—from Occam’s Razor to soup jokes. He discusses his admiration for writers like Neal Stephenson, Margaret Atwood, and Carl Hiaasen, who illuminate near-future chaos with humor and insight. Reflecting on inherited worldviews from his eccentric father and pragmatic stepfather, Rosner shares a guarded optimism: despite human folly and climate peril, technology and demographic shifts may stabilize the planet. Through his trademark mix of intellect and irreverence, Rosner dissects the human condition with both compassion and wit.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What are your favourite quotes on life and humanity?
Rick Rosner: One of my favourites is, “Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity.” Another, from either Upton Sinclair or Sinclair Lewis, goes something like, “It’s hard to get someone to understand something when their salary depends on not understanding it.” You see this with Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, who’s entirely under Trump’s thumb. When asked about the latest terrible thing Trump or the Republicans have done, he says, “I’m not aware of that.” It’s a variation on that same idea—it’s hard to get someone to be aware of something when they’re paid not to be aware of it. I like cynical quotes. I like Stephen Hawking’s line that people who brag about their IQs are losers. I like Occam’s Razor—that the simplest explanation is often the right one. There’s also an F. Scott Fitzgerald quote: “It’s the mark of a great mind to be able to hold two contradictory ideas at the same time.” There are plenty of others I like that only pop into my head when appropriate. One of my favourite dumb jokes: an old lady asks her husband, “Do you want super sex?” He thinks for a second and says, “I’ll take the soup.” I also like, “A horse walks into a bar, and the bartender asks, ‘Why the long face?’” There you go—there’s a bunch of stuff.
Jacobsen: Who are your favourite non-physicist thinkers?
Rosner: You might as well change that question to “Who are my favourite writers?” Neal Stephenson, for sure—all the writers who convincingly depict the near future. Charles Stross, Neal Stephenson, the guy who wrote The Clockwork Girl, Margaret Atwood, sometimes, the guy who wrote The Wedding Album—David something—Cory Doctorow, Dave Barry. I also like a lot of the Florida crime novelists—the ones who portray Florida as pure mayhem, with a bunch of lunatics running around. They made a movie out of one of those books—Bad Monkey. That’s by Carl Hiaasen. He tends to write the same book over and over: Bad Monkey, Strip Tease, and others. I used to like Scott Spencer, the author of Endless Love. William Gibson, too—he coined the term “cyberpunk.” I’m leaving out plenty of people, but I like writers who help us understand the near future in a digestible way. Neal Stephenson’s books are long, but they move fast. Sometimes he writes about things that aren’t near-future, and that frustrates me because I wish he’d stick to the stuff I like. He wrote a trilogy over a thousand pages long set in the seventeenth century, presenting that era as if it were science fiction—because the pace of technological change was so dramatic compared to what came before that it must have felt like science fiction. At least that one had Isaac Newton as one of the main bad guys, since Newton was, by all accounts, kind of a jerk. Still, I didn’t enjoy reading a thousand pages from Neal Stephenson that weren’t about the 2050s or 2080s.
Jacobsen: What is a piece of optimism that’s been pitched to you? How about this? A piece of optimism that’s turned out to be true or pessimism that’s turned out to be false.
Rosner: I haven’t gone through life pitching worldviews left and right, but I’d say my biggest takeaways are more like inherited attitudes. As I may have mentioned, my wife and I ended up with a box of my mom’s things after she passed away. My wife went through it and found a box of letters between my parents, spanning late 1954 through the end of their marriage. It began with love letters and then devolved into reports from a private investigator, notes from a psychiatrist, and court documents from their 1960 divorce. My wife didn’t meet my parents until the 1980s, when they’d been divorced for years and disliked each other. She transcribed all the letters and turned them into a novel that explored how they fell out of love. One thing we realized—though we should have known already—was that my dad was almost certainly on the autism spectrum. He had terrible life skills, the very worst kind of bachelor habits. I moved in with him one summer after his second divorce in 1980, and I’m not sure he even knew how to change a light bulb.
Out of twenty fixtures, maybe four bulbs worked. He had one fork in the entire kitchen, and either one pot or one pan—my brother had given him one, just in case he ever decided to cook, which he didn’t. So, one pot, one utensil, minimal lighting, but he was a pretty happy, jovial guy—though with bad OCD. He wasn’t unpleasant to hang out with, unless you were married to him, in which case his deficiencies became hard to ignore. He never talked to me about his worldview or gave me any fundamental philosophy. However, I think I inherited a lot from him genetically—some spectrum tendencies and a generally cheerful outlook.
If I had to sum it up, I’d say: even when things are going really badly, I know I can always masturbate and fall asleep. That’s oddly comforting. From my stepdad, though I didn’t inherit any genetic traits, I picked up a few life lessons. He was a friendly man who seemed to know everyone in Boulder. When we moved there in the early 1960s, the town had about fifteen thousand people. By the time I left, it was around eighty thousand, and he still seemed to know everyone. He was a small businessman, generous and charitable, but also very quick to judge people—and often labelled them fools and assholes. And honestly, I agree. People are fools and assholes. I wish I’d asked him more about what he thought, though.
“What percent of people do you think are fools or assholes?”
I don’t know what he would’ve said. He probably would’ve said that’s a question a fool or an asshole would ask. But between my stepdad and Mad Magazine, I learned that people are fallible. I believe most people, under little pressure, are good. As pressure increases, they fail—but at different thresholds. So there you go.
You asked what pessimistic worldview was passed on to me that turned out not to be true. Honestly, given the events of the past eight or nine years, it’s hard for a pessimistic worldview not to turn out true. I don’t have many that didn’t. Except maybe this: people who think climate change will be absolutely catastrophic—I 100 percent believe we’re in an era of human-caused climate change. I’m not a denier in any way, and I think we’re already seeing the signs: planes hitting severe turbulence and dropping a thousand feet in seconds—that’s increased upper-air turbulence caused by rising temperatures. In the future, people might avoid flying in the summer because of it. Hurricanes are stronger, and the weather is wilder.
Maybe half a billion or more people will be displaced, we’ll lose species, and the oceans will suffer. But I have guarded optimism because I think we’ll come up with technological “vaccinations,” if you will—imperfect but cumulative solutions, like the COVID vaccine, which wasn’t perfect but still saved lives. With polio or measles, the vaccine prevents infection entirely. With flu or COVID, it just lessens the blow. I think our response to climate change will be like that: dozens of partial solutions that, together, mitigate a lot of the damage, though not all of it. If the oceans acidify, maybe that’s the end of sushi—I don’t know.
But I don’t think behavioural fixes like recycling will save us. Technology will do most of the heavy lifting. And something else will help: we’ve got a global baby shortage. Generation Z is retreating from the physical world. They’re not having as much sex, not drinking as much, not doing as many drugs—they’re living inside their devices. You can make a joke about “pulling out,” but in this case, they really are. They’re disengaging from the world’s pleasures and vices.
Jacobsen: That non-drinking part has been criticized, but it’s actually healthy and responsible.
Rosner: Yeah, it is. I’m not judging it. I’m saying they’re less engaged with both the good and bad parts of life. Fewer babies mean we’ll probably peak in global population around the 2050s, which also means less pollution from human activity.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/01
What drives Rick Rosner’s reflections on baseball, masculinity, and the strange art of self-creation?
In this candid and eccentric exchange, Rick Rosner chats with Scott Douglas Jacobsen about fair-weather fandom, the statistical chaos of baseball, and the misunderstood genius of Dodgers manager Dave Roberts. The conversation drifts—quite literally—from bullpen blunders to body scars, as Rosner recounts crafting his Conan-inspired look and accidentally one-upping Rambo in realism. Between anecdotes of fake blood and real keloids, he muses on aging, hearing loss, and the quiet hum of tinnitus that punctuates his later years with reluctant introspection.
Complaints
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What is your complaint today?
Rick Rosner: I don’t know. What did I complain about? This morning, when we finished the show where everyone screams at each other, the Dodgers had made it to game seven. They had to win tonight to do that. People on Twitter love to criticize the Dodgers’ manager for his pitching decisions. The Dodgers were supposed to win it all—some said they would win more games this year than any team in Major League history. They didn’t, but they still finished first in their division. They didn’t even win 100 games, though. An exceptional season is 100 wins; they won 93. Their manager, Dave Roberts, gets criticized for pulling pitchers too early or leaving them in too long. The Dodgers were supposed to be loaded with pitching talent, but then injuries and underperformance set in. For years, the Dodgers have had trouble with their bullpen imploding after taking the starter out. I assume other teams deal with this, too. I’ve lived in L.A. since 1989, so that’s the perspective I hear most often.
I don’t follow baseball or any sport very closely, but given how random baseball is, I imagine many managers face the same criticism. Baseball is probably the most random of the major sports. If you look up Dave Roberts’ managerial statistics, the Dodgers have won more regular-season games since 2010 than any other team. They’ve also made the most World Series appearances in that span. Dave Roberts, who’s managed the Dodgers for about ten seasons, owns one of the best winning percentages in MLB history and the best among managers with at least 1,000 games. I’d guess his pitching decisions are no worse than anyone else’s. Someone who actually knows might prove me wrong, but if you’re going to be a fair-weather fan like I am, the Dodgers are probably the best team to root for.
Rambo Lookalike Scars
Jacobsen: Why was Rambo such an extraordinary influence on your pursuit of a girlfriend when you were younger, to the point of deep self-scarring?
Rosner: I gave myself the scars first. Rambo wasn’t really the influence—it was more Conan the Barbarian. Around 1980, when I was twenty, I was putting together a Halloween costume. My fraternity had some fake fur, so I made myself a loincloth out of it and used my weightlifting belt to hold it in place like a big diaper. I tucked fur into my knee-high socks for fur leggings, wore cowboy boots underneath, and went out as a Conan type. I had a sword from a trip to Europe when I was fifteen. We stopped in Spain, where I bought an ornamental sword. So I had a sword and fur—that’s enough to be Conan, Ponan. Good thing you caught me off guard there.
So I did that, and I did it every year because I was nearly naked, and I’d been lifting weights a lot. I figured some girl had to like the way I looked—and that was probably true. But you can’t get a girl to go out with you, even if she likes how you look, unless you’re exceptionally handsome—which I wasn’t. Unless you’re a super-beautiful man, maybe girls will make it easy for you. But if you’ve just got a good body—some muscle and abs—you still have to be able to talk to girls. I was bad at that. I assume it still works the same way now—every guy who wants to meet girls has to be able to talk to them and approach them, whether it’s in person or online. I guess with Tinder, you just have to look good in a photo. Even then, you’ll have to exchange messages.
You could probably use AI to help with that now, but back then, you had to actually talk to girls, approach them, hit on them, and deal with being rejected. I wasn’t good at it yet. I never became great at it, but I eventually got good enough to walk up to people and ask them to dance—and that’s how I met my wife. Every year, I made the costume a little better until I came up with a recipe for fake blood: about one part of the kind they sell in costume shops to five parts chocolate sauce. You get a really dark, nice colour. It’s suitable for drawing wounds, and it drips nicely.
It also solidifies—not completely, but just enough. It has a good balance between being drippy and setting. When you sweat, the fake blood comes out more readily than the chocolate sauce, so if you’re dancing with your fake cuts, you’ll drip fresher-looking blood than the rest of the blood on you. While this is technically impressive and realistic-looking, it doesn’t help you make out with a girl. But I was very into it—to the point where I thought, “Chicks seem to dig muscles.”
By the time I was twenty-two, I’d been stripping—still bad at picking up people in strip joints—but very convinced that muscles were helpful. I thought, if muscles are helpful because they’re manly, scars are even more manly. So I designed some impressive scars—mainly across my chest, a couple on my arms, and a few small ones across my abs. They turned into keloids because when I bench-pressed, I’d pop them open. The wounds kept reopening, eventually turning into thick scars. This was around 1983, maybe 1982. But I had the scars before Rambo came out. My scar design was so aesthetically appealing, so well planned, that Rambo’s scars—which were professionally designed to look rugged and masculine—were in the same places. Whether that was a coincidence or two brilliant scar-making minds thinking alike, I don’t know. But my scars came before Rambo’s.
I was still living at home—nothing says “barbarian” like still living at home—and my mom saw this giant slash down my chest. I’d done it so that it looked like I’d been in a sword fight, where my pec had been sliced. My pec was thick enough that the cut looked like it had jumped off the muscle and landed again lower on my rib cage. There was this big scabby mark, and my mom asked what happened. I couldn’t tell her I’d done it myself, so I quickly made up a story that I’d been working out at the Boulder Athletic Club, my home gym, and that a frayed cable snapped and cut me. It was the best bad story I could come up with on short notice. I should have just kept my shirt on around my mom, or thought of something better, because she called the gym owner and gave him a ton of grief for having unsafe equipment. I had to apologize to him. I don’t remember if I ever told her the truth, but anyway, my scars.
I was in a Rambo look-alike contest at one of the bars I worked at—the Dark Horse on Baseline in Boulder—at the height of Rambo fever. I’m thinking 1984 or 1985. It may have caught on even more when the sequel came out. The first one, First Blood, introduced the character, but no one thought Rambo would become this massive phenomenon. The second movie, Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985), is when people went crazy for it. There was a Rambo look-alike contest at the bar—it was me and three other guys. When they saw me with my shirt off, slightly baby-oiled to look a little shiny, two of the guys dropped out, and I won the contest. So there you go—I used to look like Rambo.
Tinnitus Progression
Jacobsen: What else?
Rosner: I’ve had tinnitus for probably ten years, and it’s a bit disquieting. Does it mean my brain is deteriorating? I usually get it when I wake up from a nap. My brain’s been awake all day, then I nap in a quiet room with no stimuli—my eyes are shut, but my ears are still on duty. They start making sounds, and when I wake up, that’s when the tinnitus is at its worst. It fades once I’m distracted by other sounds, and my brain doesn’t have to manufacture fake ones. Carol nudged me into getting a hearing aid. I got just one; one ear’s slightly worse than the other, though neither is that bad. Carole’s concerned because her mom had hearing loss, and hearing aids used to be more of a hassle. Mine charges overnight, but a few years ago you had to mess with tiny batteries—a nightmare for older people.
You never knew if the battery was in right or if it had any juice left. That’s frustrating for them and for anyone who wants them to be able to hear. My mother-in-law went long enough without good hearing that, when she finally got hearing aids, her brain had forgotten how to process certain sounds. You lose the ability to distinguish parts of words. My wife saw this happen to her mom. I’m sixty-five; her mom lived to ninety. So my wife freaks out that I’ll lose sound if I don’t amplify them. I figure that’s twenty years away, but I let her talk me into getting a hearing aid for one ear. Sometimes I use it. What’s interesting is that as soon as I put it in after waking from a nap—when my tinnitus is loudest—it immediately shuts off the tinnitus in that ear. That seems to support the idea that if your ears don’t get the stimulation they expect, they get irritated and make their own sound.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/31
What are the political, environmental, and ethical dimensions shaping recent global crises—from the U.S. shutdown to the intensifying climate disasters and revived nuclear rhetoric?
Rick Rosner discusses the ongoing U.S. federal shutdown nearing record length, explaining its implications for programs like SNAP and the potential political fallout. He reflects on Hurricane Melissa’s devastation in Jamaica and the broader climate trend of warmer oceans fueling stronger storms. Turning to international affairs, Rosner comments on Prince Andrew’s disgrace, the ultra-Orthodox protest tragedy in Israel amid deep social divisions, and J.D. Vance’s alarming advocacy for renewed nuclear testing. His critique highlights the intersection of politics, privilege, and peril, painting a picture of escalating instability shaped by inequality, misinformation, and short-term power struggles.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Anything in the news you want to cover before I jump into the main topic?
Rick Rosner: The shutdown, if it lasts through the weekend, will be approaching the record. The longest U.S. federal shutdown lasted 35 days, from December 22, 2018, to January 25, 2019. SNAP benefits don’t “run out” on a single fixed date; they’re issued monthly, and during past shutdowns the USDA used contingency funds and early issuances to keep benefits flowing for a limited time. Trump is again urging Senate Republicans to use the “nuclear option” and end the filibuster to break the impasse.
The Senate’s cloture rule requires 60 votes to overcome a filibuster, making it a more deliberative body, since Republicans currently hold 53 seats. Changing or bypassing that rule would take either a majority reinterpretation (the “nuclear option”) or a budget reconciliation process. Open enrollment always puts health costs in focus this time of year. Premiums are rising: filings for 2026 show average increases of around 18–26%. If enhanced premium tax credits expire at the end of 2025, millions of ACA enrollees could see payments more than double. Employer plans are also rising, though at lower rates. Someone in the White House clearly knows this is politically risky for Trump.
Jacobsen: Hurricane Melissa in the Caribbean has left many dead. Any thoughts?
Rosner: The deaths are tragic, and the devastation in Jamaica is severe. Hurricane Melissa struck Jamaica as a Category 5 storm with sustained winds of around 185 miles per hour, knocking out power to hundreds of thousands and damaging hospitals. Confirmed deaths in Jamaica are in the single digits, though the broader regional toll is higher as impacts spread to Cuba and Haiti. Regional governments and international agencies are now mobilizing aid. Warmer oceans worsen events like this—warmer sea-surface temperatures add energy that intensifies tropical cyclones, leading to heavier rainfall and stronger winds, even if total storm numbers don’t rise dramatically. That’s what I’ve got. Rotten Tomatoes.
Jacobsen: Other news: Britain’s King Charles has stripped his younger brother Andrew of his title and forced him out of his Windsor home, according to Buckingham Palace sources on Thursday. The royal family is working to distance itself from him over his links to the Jeffrey Epstein scandal. Any thoughts?
Rosner: All right. So you have Prince Andrew accused of having sex with underage girls connected to Jeffrey Epstein. He’s the only one, besides Epstein himself—who died in custody—who has faced serious public consequences so far. Epstein is dead, but besides him, the former prince, Andrew—now just Andrew Windsor—is the only man involved who’s been formally penalized.
Even though the FBI has said that hundreds of women and girls were exploited in Epstein’s trafficking network, only Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, and Andrew have faced significant repercussions. Many people remain angry about the lack of accountability, particularly regarding Donald Trump, whose name has appeared in connection with Epstein, though no charges have been filed against him.
There are still the Epstein case files, which contain extensive documentation about what happened on the island and elsewhere. Some conspiracy theories have circulated, claiming that political gridlock or government shutdowns are linked to blocking their release, but there is no credible evidence to support that claim. The reality is that the complete set of unredacted materials has not been released publicly due to ongoing legal and privacy constraints.
My wife, upon hearing that Prince Andrew has been stripped of his titles, said his daughters must be furious with him because they were royalty. I don’t know whether losing his title affects his daughters’ titles, but either way, he’s disgraced. He’s been in trouble over this for years, and it’s striking that only his name has been fully exposed while many others have not. It’s deeply troubling. Rotten Tomatoes.
We could talk about the nature of the victims’ suffering. According to the FBI, there were likely hundreds of girls. Many of them are women now. Some have died—one reportedly by suicide and others from overdoses—while countless others live with lifelong trauma.
Beyond the abuse itself, some victims were pressured to recruit others, which leaves them with guilt and psychological scars on top of everything else. Epstein and his associates exploited economic vulnerability, targeting girls from less privileged backgrounds with offers of money or opportunity. In places like Palm Beach, where Epstein operated, wealth and inequality intersected in ways that made exploitation easier. These girls were coerced into bringing in others, and many now live with the burden of feeling complicit in crimes they were themselves victimized by. It’s a ruthless cycle.
Jacobsen: For women who rope other women in and know what’s happening, would they be more likely to fall on the antisocial personality scale, do you think?
Rosner: I don’t know. I can’t speak to that. I feel like they could have been all sorts of different people. There were a lot of them. You live in Palm Beach, maybe in a struggling household, and you see these wealthy people in their mansions. Then you’re offered an invitation into that world. You’re a young woman, probably chosen because you’re attractive, and maybe you start to think your looks or your willingness to please can elevate your situation—or at least give you some excitement. Going to a rich person’s island sounds glamorous until it isn’t.
I don’t know what everyone was thinking, but it went on for years. Epstein was caught, received a lenient sentence due to his connections and influence, and then continued the same behaviour after his release. He ran a hedge fund, so he had power, money, and leverage. The entire operation went on for years after that. I’ve watched documentaries on it, but even with that, I can’t speak with certainty about every detail. What’s clear is that it was an enormous web of exploitation and coercion. A lot of terrible things happened.
Jacobsen: In other news—tragic story—a teenager has died during an ultra-Orthodox protest in Jerusalem. It was a mass ultra-Orthodox Jewish rally against military conscription that turned deadly on Thursday. A teenage boy fell to his death during the demonstration, which shut down the main entrance to the city.
Rosner: I don’t know the exact circumstances of his death, but in Israel, nearly everyone is required to serve in the military—men and women—usually around two years for men and a bit less for women. The ultra-Orthodox, however, receive religious exemptions. The ultra-Orthodox are often among the most conservative and nationalist groups in Israel and have supported the ruling coalition under Netanyahu. That coalition has led the ongoing war in Gaza, which has lasted almost two years and, according to credible humanitarian estimates, has killed tens of thousands of Palestinians.
The Israeli government’s early failures allowed Hamas’s October 2023 attack to succeed, killing about 1,200 Israelis and leading to around 250 hostages being taken, many of whom are presumed dead. Most Israelis now oppose Netanyahu and the coalition dominated by ultra-right religious parties. The anger is compounded by the fact that these groups, while encouraging a hardline military campaign, don’t serve in the military themselves.
There’s now intense public pressure to end the exemption for the ultra-Orthodox. Meanwhile, in the West Bank, right-wing settler violence against Palestinians continues, with limited condemnation or intervention from the government. So yes, tensions are high, resentment is deep, and the whole situation remains volatile.
Jacobsen: J.D. Vance has stated that testing the U.S. nuclear arsenal is essential for national security.
Rosner: Yeah, forget that guy. He’s a terrible person—deeply hypocritical and openly transphobic. He’s married to a woman whose parents are both immigrants and who’s of a different religion, yet he routinely attacks the very groups his own family represents. He once called Trump “America’s Hitler,” but when access to power became available, he completely reversed himself.
The United States and Russia once possessed a combined total of around 30,000 nuclear warheads at the height of the Cold War. Each had roughly 7,000 at its peak, and both have reduced their stockpiles by about 75%, though not recently. For decades, U.S. presidents and Soviet or Russian leaders held ongoing nuclear arms reduction talks—but those have largely stalled.
Now, Putin has been making statements about developing faster, “unstoppable” nuclear missiles. In response, Trump and J.D. Vance have been suggesting that the U.S. resume atomic testing. Nuclear test bans aren’t absolute, but since the Partial Test Ban Treaty of 1963 and the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (though not ratified by the U.S.), such tests have been severely limited. In the 1950s and early 1960s, both nations detonated massive bombs to intimidate one another.
Trump has described himself as a “president of peace.” Yet, this rhetoric about renewed nuclear testing signals a move toward another arms race—possibly in coordination with Putin—at a time already destabilized by emerging risks like artificial intelligence integration into military command systems. That’s profoundly dangerous. It’s one more disaster layered onto what may be the most reckless presidential movement in modern U.S. history.
Even if Russia develops a so-called unstoppable missile, it doesn’t mean they’ve “won.” The U.S. already possesses submarine-launched ballistic missiles that are nearly impossible to intercept. Land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) are also effectively unstoppable once launched. America’s missile defence system includes 44 ground-based interceptors, each with an estimated 50–60% success rate against an incoming warhead. To achieve roughly a 98% chance of destroying one missile, the U.S. would need to fire about five interceptors at it.
If a hostile power launched ten nuclear missiles, several would still likely reach their targets. A single 100-kiloton detonation—a size not uncommon in modern arsenals—could kill several hundred thousand people, two to three times the number who died in Hiroshima. Submarine-launched missiles are even harder to counter because they can be fired from near coastal waters rather than across the pole, reducing detection and response time.
So, yes, Putin can boast about a “new unstoppable” missile—but the truth is that nuclear weapons are already unstoppable. Reigniting an arms race after decades of de-escalation is catastrophic for global security.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/28
Who leaves the bar first: Rick Rosner or Grigori Perelman?
Rick Rosner opens with a cheeky challenge: in a bar of sixty-year-old women, he claims he would leave with a date faster than Grigori Perelman. Scott Douglas Jacobsen grounds the banter with facts—Perelman proved the Poincaré conjecture, declined the Fields Medal and Clay prize, and lives reclusively. The duo calibrate odds, debating five-eighths versus nine-sixteenths while teasing variables—American versus Russian patrons, shared Jewish background, flirtation strategies, and Rosner’s past as a stripper. The exchange is a playful thought experiment about charm, fame, and probability, not a moral treatise, balancing irreverent humor with precise references to mathematics, awards, and cultural nuance.
Rick Rosner: So let’s get started. Or should we begin with my claim that if you put Grigori Perelman and me in a bar full of 60-year-old ladies, seven times out of eight, I will go home with one of them quicker than Grigori Perelman—even though he solved… what did he solve? Not Fermat’s—what was it?
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: The Poincaré conjecture.
Rosner: Poincaré, fine. You can do that till the cows come home. I’m going home with a divorced lady.
Jacobsen: Hold on. Who are the women in the bar? What’s the demographic? Americans or Russians?
Rosner: Is he Russian or American?
Jacobsen: He is Russian. You’re both Jewish.
Rosner: All right, I guess we have to make it half and half. And I suppose he could go home with a Russian lady as long as he’s got cigarettes and lunch meat.
Jacobsen: May I give an estimate and then get your response?
Rosner: Go ahead.
Jacobsen: Ten times out of sixteen.
Rosner: Wait—ten times out of sixteen I go home with someone before he does?
Jacobsen: Okay, fine. Twenty out of thirty-two.
Rosner: That’s the same fraction.
Jacobsen: I know.
Rosner: Is he married? What’s his deal?
Jacobsen: I don’t think so. No, he declined the Fields Medal in 2006 and the $1 million Clay Millennium Prize in 2010 after proving the Poincaré conjecture. He left academic life and is known as a reclusive, accomplished mathematician.
Rosner: All right, I’ll give you that five-eighths ratio—62.5 percent—if the crowd in the bar is half Russian women and half the older versions of people whose IDs I used to check back in the ’80s. Now they’re fully of age. They’ve been divorced. Some might be plump church ladies; others might be cougars.
When I was a stripper, I wish I’d known this. I’ve told you about the secret to making your dick look longer when you’re stripping: you grab it and stretch it. That’ll give you a minute, maybe seventy-five seconds, of extra length. So my strategy would be—if nothing else worked—I could charm a group of women into pretending they’d hired me for a bachelorette party. Then I’d take my clothes off and gyrate around. I don’t think Grigori Perelman would do that.
Jacobsen: I think that might make it nine-sixteenths.
Rosner: So you’re talking about 0.5625.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/29
Wole Soyinka says the U.S. revoked his visa after he renounced residency; any thoughts?
Scott Douglas Jacobsen presses Rick Rosner on why Donald Trump’s approval is deflating amid cost of living strain, tariffs, and a long federal shutdown. Rosner, who places tiny prediction bets, expects support to hover in the low forties. He argues Trump’s chaos distracts from policy failures, with inflation near three percent and looming insurance hikes hurting households. He criticizes ICE’s accountability and leadership, citing broader abuses of power. On Wole Soyinka’s visa, he decries political vindictiveness. Addressing elevated stillbirths, he points to COVID’s long tail, deferred care from affordability barriers, and persistent racial inequities in maternal and infant health outcomes.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Let’s do a little bit of politics. Trump’s popularity has dipped, according to Reuters, apparently because of cost-of-living issues that many Americans are now facing. There’s a lot going on.
Rick Rosner: Last month, I started placing small bets—just a dollar or so—on Trump’s popularity at the end of the month or the beginning of the next. This month, I’ve got $1.20 riding on his approval rating being in the 44s, somewhere between 44.0 and 44.9 percent.
On November 1st, I have another bet covering the 43s, where he usually sits. Right now, his rating is at 43.3 percent on The Silver Bulletin—that’s Nate Silver’s aggregation of all the polls he considers reliable. I have another dollar riding on his popularity being above 42.5 percent on November 1st. I’ll probably lose the 44 percent bet and maybe the 43 percent one, but not the 42.5 percent. It can’t fall that far.
Anyway, his popularity is slowly deflating. The story you mentioned says it’s economic, and that makes sense. But with Trump, there’s always a lot going on. There’s always a lot going on. I don’t even know if you can call it a strategy—he’s such a chaotic guy that…
Does he even have strategies? Doing and saying a lot of things has worked well for him because it distracts from every other outrageous thing he says or does. But there are plenty of issues that could weigh on him now. The tariffs are all slowly kicking in, and inflation is back up to around 3%. That’s not enough to cause panic, but I think it’s going to keep climbing.
The government has been shut down for—what are we at now?—day 28, I think. In a few days, it’ll be the longest shutdown in U.S. history. People aren’t getting paid: the military, 1.4 million government employees, and SNAP benefits—food assistance—will soon run out for around 41 or 42 million Americans, tens of millions of them children. That’s about one-eighth of the U.S. population.
Trump isn’t even in the country to deal with it. He’s been over in Japan and Malaysia, and he’s also spending time at the White House overseeing a $300 million renovation to build a new ballroom.
Among the things he was elected to do, he’s been somewhat successful at shutting down the border—there aren’t many people crossing anymore. ICE, however, is another story. They’re not rounding up “bad hombres”; they’re rounding up mostly working people who’ve never broken the law. And ICE has a brutal, toxic culture.
I bounced at bars for 25 years, and I learned firsthand that when you put a bunch of aggressive people together without oversight, their behavior deteriorates fast. You see it in police departments too—when there’s no accountability, bad cops egg each other on because there are benefits to being a bad cop. You get to beat people up, intimidate others, and sometimes exploit your position in other ways.
In my bouncing days, I saw guys use their power for sexual coercion at clubs. Cops have even more power, which can lead to worse abuse. At ICE, there’s no leadership insisting on accountability, and it shows. The agency’s culture is rotten from the top down.
Kristi Noem, for instance, is notorious for shooting a puppy she didn’t like and a goat that smelled—which all goats do, by the way. Her lieutenant, Corey Lewandowski, is married but has been having an affair with her for years, and he’s got his own reputation for being, let’s say, “handsy.” So ICE is being run by creeps.
On top of that, on November 1st, people will start receiving their health insurance bills for 2026, and many are going to see their costs double or triple. A family making $85,000 a year might suddenly have to pay $24,000 for medical coverage—which is absurd.
So, with all this happening—tariffs, inflation, the government shutdown, ICE’s abuses, and exploding healthcare costs—Trump’s popularity is bound to keep slipping. He was elected to secure the border and lower costs for Americans. He’s only half-delivered on the first and failed spectacularly on the second, all while doing a ton of other nonsense no one asked him to do. His popularity’s deflating for good reason.
His popularity is slowly declining. It’s been hovering in the 43–44 percent range for three, maybe six months—I’ve lost track. He’s only been president again for about nine months, but it’s the same pattern as his first term. Until the country fell apart under COVID in 2020, he ran the same numbers—low 40s, remarkably stable.
So, we’re seeing the same thing again. His popularity is surprisingly steady for such a chaotic guy. But yeah, it’s slowly deflating.
Jacobsen: Nobel Prize–winning author Wole Soyinka, age 91, said in 2016 that he had torn up his U.S. green card and renounced his American residency in protest after Donald Trump was elected. He’s now announced that the U.S. has revoked his visa. Any thoughts?
Rosner: Yeah, that’s just more dickishness. The first time Trump was president, he at least had a few competent people around him. The one I always mention is his secretary of state—Rex Tillerson, the former head of ExxonMobil. He only lasted about a year. This time, Trump has surrounded himself with sycophants—half of them billionaires, and around forty who used to work at Fox News. They’re not just unqualified; they were brought in to dismantle the government, to make it work worse if they felt like it. It’s a much nastier crew.
One of the things they’ve been doing is targeting people they don’t like politically, especially at the border. If you’re not a natural-born citizen—if you’re naturalized, have a green card, or are here on a student visa—and you say something they don’t like, they’ll find a way to mess with you. Even though the First Amendment protects free speech, they still intimidate people.
When I travel, I actually keep two Twitter accounts. One is where I complain about politics, and the other is quieter. The quieter one is on my phone, so if customs ever demands to check my device, there’s less for them to see.
We’re lucky to live in Los Angeles, in a blue state. Customs officials here are probably less inclined to hassle people. When we come back into the country, it’s usually through LAX. If we were returning through Texas, maybe we’d get hassled more—but so far, we’ve been fine.
Jacobsen: There’s been an above-average level of stillbirths in the United States, particularly affecting low-income communities. Any thoughts?
Rosner: That’s concerning. One thing to look at over the past five years is the rate of people infected with COVID. If you get a bad or even moderate case, or long COVID, the virus can infiltrate all sorts of bodily systems. It’s inflammatory and can cause damage you might not even notice. So when you see troubling health trends like rising stillbirth rates, COVID has to be one of the prime suspects.
Another possible factor is that people struggling to pay for medical care or insurance might simply be seeing doctors less often. During the height of COVID, cancer rates appeared to rise—not because the virus caused cancer, but because people were avoiding hospitals and clinics, as they were told to, which meant diagnostic exams were delayed by months. So, for me, the number one suspect in most recent health crises is COVID. Number two is the inability to afford care. And number three—when it involves infants—is the persistent racial disparities in U.S. healthcare. Black Americans’ medical concerns, including pain and complications during pregnancy, are statistically taken less seriously.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/28
Why do ordinary human sounds like chewing or lip smacking trigger such strong feelings of disgust, and how does evolutionary psychology explain these instinctive reactions to perceived unfitness or poor hygiene?
Scott Douglas Jacobsen asks why ordinary bodily noises irritate us. Rick Rosner frames the reaction as evolutionary triage: humans quickly judge reproductive fitness, triggering instant attraction or the ick. Aversion to lip smacking, grunting, and loud chewing may signal traits like poor hygiene or impulsivity, maladaptive in mate choice. Disgust toward feces, blood, and exposed anatomy protects against disease and injury. Visible reminders of internal bodies, like open-mouth chewing, amplify repulsion. We also assess non-targets as competitors, and unease around extreme old age reflects selection pressures minimizing misdirected sexual interest. The interview explores instinct, culture, and biology behind everyday irritation.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: An open philosophical question: why do certain normal human sounds annoy us? We evolved to make all these bodily noises. We’re embodied in these organic cages, making sounds—young or old—and yet some of those sounds irritate us. Maybe it’s cultural, maybe individual, but why does annoyance arise? Why do people react negatively to something like cottonmouth or throat smacking?
Rick Rosner: I just made a smacking sound there. With visceral reactions like that—especially in romantic contexts—people call it “getting the ick.” It’s when a potential partner says or does something that instantly turns you off sexually. I’d say that having an instant, instinctual reaction—positive or negative—to someone usually has to do with perceived reproductive fitness.
We’re deeply programmed by evolution to want to reproduce and to evaluate others for reproductive fitness. If it’s someone we’re sexually attracted to, we subconsciously assess their fitness as a mate. If they seem healthy and strong, that triggers desire.
If it’s someone of a gender we’re not attracted to, we still evaluate them, but as competition. Across the board, we’re also wired to be sensitive to signs of health. For instance, feces smell horrible to us, because they’re biologically dangerous. It’s unhealthy to get that stuff near your mouth or eyes. One of our dogs sometimes eats her own poop—it’s disgusting to us because evolution made it that way for a reason.
When people make certain noises—grunting, smacking their lips, chewing loudly—my guess is our aversion reflects something about perceived unfitness. Maybe it signals poor hygiene or impulsivity, traits that would’ve been bad for mate selection.
Why do we get grossed out when people chew with their mouths open and we can see their food? I’m not sure. That doesn’t map cleanly onto reproductive fitness. But I do think we’re repelled by visible reminders of what’s inside the body. We know what’s under the skin—blood, organs, muscle—and evolution has made us wary of that.
We don’t want to see people split open. It’s probably a survival adaptation: it would be bad for a species to be casual about injuries that reveal internal anatomy. That’s why blood and wounds cause such intense revulsion—we don’t want that happening to us or to anyone we care about.
Some people even get uneasy around the extremely old. Maybe that’s also tied to reproductive fitness—it does the species no good, evolutionarily speaking, to be sexually drawn to someone who’s eighty-three.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/23
How does Rick Rosner explain the link between high intelligence, arrogance, and male impulsivity among tech billionaires like Peter Thiel and Elon Musk?
In this conversation, Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner discuss the dangers of intellectual arrogance among powerful tech figures, including Peter Thiel and Elon Musk. Rosner describes Thiel’s apocalyptic worldview—literally believing in a battle against the Antichrist—and connects it to the “smart stupid” phenomenon: highly intelligent individuals mistaking narrow expertise for universal wisdom. He warns that such overconfidence, coupled with unchecked AI development, could threaten humanity. Rosner also contrasts tech billionaires with Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, then explores biological and social reasons why men—driven by risk-taking impulses—are more prone to self-destructive stupidity.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: This one is for regular stuff —last few minutes. Peter Thiel is a lunatic. There is a pattern, more common among men than women in my observation—people with high intelligence, as measured by standard tests, often turn out to be loons. Thiel has gone on a whole spiel about the Antichrist, which has now been mocked in South Park, Season 28, Episode 1.
Rick Rosner: Yeah, and he holds private talks for—I guess—other billionaire tech bros, or whoever, where he does not allow the talks to be recorded. However, he gets up there and says, “We have to fight the Antichrist.”
Jacobsen: How would you describe the character of his kind of loon?
Rosner: What is the word? There is an essay—if you Google KingDaddy (all one word)—that impressed me a lot. It is about “smart stupids,” a term for tech bros who, because they are smart or lucky in one area, think they are smart in all areas. They have this arrogant overconfidence. Elon Musk is a perfect example of that. They think they are gods among men.
This is one reason why AI is so frightening—because the money and the power behind the big AI companies are often in the hands of these arrogant billionaires, these “smart stupids,” who think their hunches and incomplete understandings of the world are better than anyone else’s. They think, “If we want to build AI and just let the chips fall where they may, that is fine—we will handle it.” No, we will not. AI without safeguards—without slowing down to align what people want and what AI might want—is dangerous.
So I would describe Thiel as a guy so confident in his worldview that he has adopted a really crazy worldview: that we are literally fighting the Antichrist. As a metaphor, it is not bad—but I think he believes it literally. He believes it so strongly that he holds these closed-door meetings—no cameras, no recording devices—with other influential people, lecturing them about this apocalyptic nonsense. That is how I would characterize these motherfuckers.
Elon Musk, in his arrogance, helped get the worst president in history re-elected. He turned Twitter—now X—into a bastion of right-wing hate and misinformation because he thinks it is somehow “good,” and it is not. These guys may end up laying waste to humanity in their arrogance.
There is a pretty fun movie called Don’t Look Up, starring Leonardo DiCaprio and Jennifer Lawrence, about how people react when an asteroid is a few weeks away from destroying Earth. The billionaires in that movie—the tech billionaires with the power to stop it—do all the wrong things. It is funny, but it captures these people’s current behaviour perfectly.
I would characterize Bill Gates differently. He is on the autism spectrum and can be a prick, but I think his thinking and heart are in the right place. He is giving away his money to eradicate malaria and doing tangible good. I do not know what he thinks about AI—he is in the Microsoft orbit, so he is probably involved a bit—but you do not hear much from him about it.
Jacobsen: He talks about AI as an accelerant to his work on disease eradication and reducing child mortality.
Rosner: All right, so he has got a rosy view of it—maybe that makes him a “smart stupid” in that respect, too. Warren Buffett is a billionaire, but not a tech billionaire. He is an old-school investor who seems to have his heart in the right place. He is giving away his money, leaving his kids a few million each, and putting the rest toward improving the world. So, not every billionaire is a piece of shit—but every tech billionaire motherfucker is.
Jacobsen: Why do you think it is more often men than women who turn out to be loons with high intelligence?
Rosner: I have not thought about it rigorously, maybe ever, but one fact has always stuck with me: the corpus callosum—the bundle of neurons connecting the two brain hemispheres—is thicker in women than in men. Women tend to have more inter-hemispheric connectivity. They are generally less impulsive and more inclined to consider the implications of their actions.
One time when I was about twenty, walking near a campus construction site, there was a big hole in the ground—maybe ten feet by six feet. I couldn’t see what was in it, so I thought, “I’ll just jump in and see what happens.” And I did. Luckily, it wasn’t that deep, and there wasn’t rebar waiting to impale me. There were pipes down there; I ended up standing on one and climbed out. That kind of stupid impulse—jumping first, thinking later—feels very male to me. Even for someone with an IQ of 190, that kind of stupidity feels very male.
Once, in a restaurant, a guy made fun of me for wearing a mask. He said something snide, and I just started yelling, “Fuck you! Fuck you!” at him—a guy who was at least eighty-five pounds heavier than me. I went after him, yelling, “Fuck you!” without thinking. If I had stopped to think, I’d have realized that someone who picks on a person he thinks looks weak doesn’t actually want to fight. I must have known that subconsciously, but still, there I was, a 140-pound guy yelling “Fuck you!” at a 225-pound man.
The only thing that stopped me from following him out of the restaurant was my wife, Carole, freaking out and yelling, “He’ll break you like a stick!” It annoyed me at the time, but it was also hilarious. Her panic disoriented me just long enough for the guy to leave. That moment captures male stupidity perfectly—yelling at someone who outweighs you by 60 or 70 percent.
Men are more impulsive. The autistic or “on-the-spectrum” style in men tends to be different, too—more obsessive. From a sociobiological standpoint, men are more disposable. Women have wombs, and reproduction depends on them surviving. You can only grow one or two babies at a time, so you need women to avoid getting themselves killed. Men, though, are expendable. You could lose ninety percent of your men and still repopulate, because the remaining ones can impregnate all the surviving women.
Biologically, we’re made shoddier. We die sooner. The Y chromosome is smaller and carries fewer genes. We’re the inferior product—expendable by design. It’s helpful to have lots of men around for defending the village or hunting, but evolutionarily speaking, men are meant to take risks. Villages with reckless, impulsive men probably survived better than those full of cautious, thoughtful people who paused to consider all the alternatives. That’s a bleak but persuasive take. A lot of thoughts there. Okay, we’ll call it a day.
Jacobsen: Talk to you tomorrow.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/22
How do gait, posture, and clothing shape perceptions of toughness and deter aggression?
In this candid interview Rick Rosner dissects swagger, perceived toughness, and the theater of fighting. He traces changes in media tone, references gait studies that link movement to social impressions, and contrasts performative bravado with quiet confidence exemplified by fictional Reacher. Rosner recounts his own history—from peak physicality and bouncer days on roller skates to underestimating real fighting skill—and admits both theatrical and regrettable violent episodes, including a work altercation. He reflects on deterrence tactics, the paradox that confident individuals often do not swagger, and how clothing and posture can alter others’ behavior, mixing wry self-awareness with practical lessons.
Rick Rosner: Drudge Report, which is now my news aggregator, used to be heavily in Breitbart land—super Trumpy and conservative. In 2019–2020 it shifted and got more critical of Trump, so it reads more neutral to me now.
There was a report on Drudge about a study where researchers translated the gaits of men—their walking styles—into stick figures. You couldn’t tell the actual size or appearance of the men; you could only see how they moved. Research using stick-figure or “point-light” walkers does show people infer traits from gait, but I can’t verify that exact “6.6% of badass perception” number; call it a small slice of the overall impression.
You want your shoulders held wide—which I assume means pulling them back a bit so your chest sticks out. You want to stand straight, like they teach you in dance class—imagine there’s a string coming out of the top of your head. Paradoxically, or maybe not, the more you swagger, the more you swing your body around, the more badass you look.
However, people who are more confident about winning in a fight don’t swagger. They just walk quietly down the street. Think Reacher—the giant drifter and ex–U.S. Army Military Police major who’s the star of Lee Child’s novels, two films, and an Amazon TV series. He just walks the way he’s going to walk without swinging his arms around. Confidence means maybe you don’t need to swagger.
I used to be a dog. I was 175 pounds at my heaviest, around 5% body fat, maybe six or seven. Now I’m under 140, so I’m not a dog anymore—I’m a cat. But I still think I walk in a way that makes people not mess with me. The last time somebody gave me shit, like I was a pussy, I was wearing a mask at the Fish Grill restaurant in a little mall with Carol. I was wearing a shirt that was too big for me, which made me look very small. A guy dissed me for wearing a mask, and I started screaming, “Fuck you,” at him. Carol freaked out, but if I’d been wearing a tighter shirt, he probably wouldn’t have messed with me.
When I bounced at bars, during the last few years I wore roller skates because it was fun and made me taller—more “bouncer-sized.” There was no way I was going to win a fight on roller skates. If somebody grabbed or punched me, I was going down. Ideally, I’d hold onto them, and we’d both go down, which was fine. You’re both on the ground—that’s one person being a dick who’s taken out of the fight. Even without the roller skates, I would’ve gone down anyway because I’m not a good fighter. I didn’t win fights as a bouncer.
At one chain of bars I worked for, Grand American Fair, you got fired if you punched somebody. If a customer punched you, you got 25 bucks. If you punched them, you got fired. We weren’t supposed to be in the “winning fights” business.
In any case, I wouldn’t have won anyway because I forget that I can hit people. So in bar fights, I didn’t win. Sometimes I’d put somebody in a sleeper hold, but I didn’t know how to do it right.
And they didn’t go to sleep, and people screamed that I was strangling them, which I was, so I’d let go. Then they’d often turn around and just hit me, and then I’d put them in a bad sleeper again, and people would scream, and then they’d hit me yet again. Anyway, not great in bar fights.
But the last extra—well, it was a work fight. I sucker-punched my writing partner. I won that fight. I pushed him over, and then I hammered him in the eye three times. So, I guess I’m reasonably willing to step into a fight, though I’m on Toprol, which is an adrenaline blocker and blood-pressure drug, so maybe I’m not as enthusiastic or angry enough to get in a fight now that my adrenaline is knocked down. But in my dreams I win a ton of fights, which is weird, considering my record is not great.
Like when I used to go up against Cousin Sal—Jimmy’s cousin—he was a wrestler in high school and I think even in college, and he did one appearance as a pro wrestler. When I wanted him, in a second or a second and a half I’d be on my back on the ground without even understanding how it happened. So my logistical command of fighting is not good, but in dreams I get a hold of people, and I hit them.
It’s generally implied—dreams don’t give you much information—that the person deserves it. But that aside, they will not stop fighting back, and I end up just beating the shit out of them. I’m like, just hit them, and I’m like, stay down. I don’t know if I say “stay down,” because that’s such a movie thing to say when you’re beating somebody up in a fight, but I don’t know. I think I walk confidently and badassly if somebody who’s 140 pounds can be a badass, which they really can’t, but it’s more based on what a badass I am in dreams and when I’m sucker-punching somebody, rather than in anything like a fair fight.
But anyway, when we do the Lance versus Rick thing in a couple of weeks, I’ll walk, and then people will say what kind of pussy I look like. No—Rotten Tomatoes. When was the last fight you got in?
Jacobsen: Never.
Rosner: Never? You never have been in a fight—like is that just because Canada? Does everybody just wait till Maudie shows up and then he decides he’s right? What the fuck?
Jacobsen: I have a very long, illustrious, honorable, verbose, loquacious, convincing, soft, and subtle history of talking my way out of them.
Rosner: No—see, I would talk myself into fights, because that’s also a skill. In bars, I worked a lot of places with large bounce staffs, and often the bouncers would think I was kind of a pussy. I was not at home with beating the shit out of people, but what I could do was take a punch. If you talk to a drunk person and tell them why they’re getting kicked out in a real condescending voice—like they’re a piece of shit and you’re better than they are—and they’re in your face saying they don’t deserve to get kicked out, and you go, “You’re going to get kicked out, you did this,” and you talk to them like they’re a stupid baby in a way that is infuriating, since they’re drunk a lot of the time, they will just go ahead and hit you.
I was glad to do this because they would hit me, and since they’re drunk, they don’t realize there are two or three bouncers clustered behind them waiting for the hit to come. Once they hit me, shit would happen.
If the guy was wearing a jacket or an untucked shirt—you grab the jacket and lift it, and their arms come up in the jacket with them, and now they’re trapped. Then you take them to the ground, and other things might happen. I was happy to participate as the guy who got punched in the face because I have big eyebrows and pretty big cheekbones; nobody ever managed to get a finger in my eye and really fuck up my eye.
It would bounce off the bony parts of my face, plus they were weak because they were drunk. I was just happy not to lose a contact when I got punched. It was win-win: the bouncers got to take a guy to the ground, I got to show I wasn’t a pussy by getting punched, and I got to be a dick to somebody. It was pretty fun and made me feel like a tough guy, though I am not really.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/18
How do Jacobsen and Rosner connect the randomness of baseball, Trump’s political chaos, and the art of personal reinvention in their wide-ranging conversation?
In this sharp and witty dialogue, Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosnerjump from the Dodgers’ playoff run and Shohei Ohtani’s brilliance to Trump’s monument ambitions, the decline of democratic institutions, and the absurdity of political theater. They dissect how randomness governs both baseball and governance, drawing parallels between sport, power, and personal resilience. Rosner critiques America’s authoritarian drift and reflects on creative life—from his daughter’s new book deal to his own search for purpose and a website mission statement. The exchange captures intellect, humor, and exhaustion in an era where spectacle often replaces reason.
Rick Rosner: I like following the Dodgers because they have been one of the winningest teams in Major League Baseball since 2010. I do not like supporting underdogs because I don’t want to be disappointed. I am a terrible fan—the worst kind of fan. However, they are doing really well in the playoffs.
They may have the best player of this generation—Shohei Ohtani, the Japanese superstar. It is characteristic of the Dodgers, and probably many other teams, that sometimes their regular-season players do not perform as well in the playoffs, and vice versa. That is not necessarily the players’ fault, because baseball is the most statistically random of the major sports. A batting average of .300—getting a hit three out of every ten at-bats—is considered excellent.
Only a small percentage of Major League players, usually under 10%, finish a season hitting .300 or better. There is a tremendous amount of randomness in the game.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Any new Trump, Biden, or Obama news? Not much with Biden or Obama, but Trump continues to do new outrageous things every day. Enablers surround him and have learned that the more shocking stuff he announces or does, the more they distract from everything else he has already done.
When a monkey only throws one piece of poo a day, it is easier for the keepers to get in there and clean the enclosure before it throws again. However, if the poo is constant—if the monkey’s throwing nonstop—it becomes much harder to stop the chaos.
That is a terrible analogy, and it is not even mine—it comes from Dreamweasel on X (formerly Twitter). However, the point stands: the chaos Trump creates is constant. Recently, he floated the idea of constructing a new monument in Washington, D.C.—something like an “American Arc de Triomphe.”
It is in terrible taste. The proposed design resembles the French Arc de Triomphe, but with gaudy gold detailing and an angel-like figure on top—entirely out of step with the neoclassical style of D.C.’s existing monuments. There was another man with grandiose and terrible architectural taste: Adolf Hitler.
When you look at some of the plans he had for Berlin under architect Albert Speer, Trump’s taste might actually be worse. At least Hitler was an artist—he applied to the Academy of Fine Arts Vienna (not Berlin) and produced architectural paintings that were competent, though not enough to get him admitted around 1907–1908.
Back to Trump. He reportedly wants to organize a parade or celebration for America’s 250th anniversary in 2026, possibly involving military displays. Some of his comments have included extreme and implausible suggestions, such as military flyovers or naval demonstrations, though there is no credible indication that he has proposed firing missiles into California.
I don’t know how Trump plans to mark the event. I guess the missiles are supposed to explode in midair—or do they hit targets on the ground? I don’t know, but it is lunacy. It’s just more crazy nonsense.
We won’t talk again until after King’s Day, which is two days from now, since you’re travelling. It’s supposed to be a day when people across America turn out to protest all the unilateral actions Trump is taking. The Republicans, of course, are calling it “Hate America Day,” as if protesting Trump means you hate the country. It’s cynical but probably effective messaging.
Jacobsen: What about the Supreme Court?
Rosner: Based on what was said when this was argued a few days ago before the Supreme Court, it looks like they’re going to do further damage to the Voting Rights Act and allow Southern states to gerrymander out districts with enough Black voters to elect Black representatives to Congress. If the ruling goes as expected, it could flip as many as nineteen seats to the Republicans.
That’s bad because the Republicans, now in control of government, are not just doing a poor job—they are doing an authoritarian and corrosive job. They’re enabling Trump, the worst president in U.S. history.
It used to be that every couple of years—every eighteen months or so—various universities or organizations would poll presidential historians and ask them to rank presidents from best to worst. Out of the five rankings published since Trump was first elected, he was rated the worst president of all time in two of them. The panels included historians from across the political spectrum: most liberal, but also some conservative and moderate voices. In the other three surveys, he was ranked second worst, third worst, and fourth worst.
The last such survey was conducted in February 2024. I doubt another will be done this year—or even next year—because no university wants to risk Trump’s retaliation. This is a man who could try to pull hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding from a university simply for publishing a survey calling him the worst president in history.
So, I don’t expect another presidential greatness survey until he’s out of office. Moreover, even then, I’m not sure the results would be accurate. Many historians might be too intimidated to participate—or, if they did, they might artificially rank him higher to avoid his wrath. So, there will probably be no presidential greatness survey until 2029.
By that time, if Republicans are out of power, Trump will almost certainly be ranked the worst president in American history—because he’s only gotten worse since the last survey was taken. I should probably stop talking about it, though; I don’t want to draw his ire either.
Also, my wife—who knows the ins and outs of publishing—said we should probably come up with a mission statement for my website, if you don’t mind, at some point, especially if I want to get a book deal.
My kid just got a book deal, by the way. We’ve been following her path to getting one. She’s an engaging communicator in her field, which is very visual. She’s good at that sort of thing.
Jacobsen: Plus, you want to get a book deal too, right?
Rosner: So let us come up with mission statements. You should write one for yourself, and at some point, we can discuss creating a mission statement for the top of my website—something that helps define my lane.
Jacobsen: Math, G-strings, and rollerblades.
Rosner: Yeah, that’s several different lanes. No, that’s the pitch—that’s the name of the book. It’s been pitched fairly thoroughly. I actually had a book deal for four days once—it was there, and then it was gone.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/16
As a writer, what makes good dialogue in movies? And what’s an example of that?
Rick Rosner tells Scott Douglas Jacobsen that sharp movie dialogue comes from cutting: show, don’t tell, and dodge clichés like “We’ve got company” or “Chop, chop.” Keep audiences oriented through action, not exposition. He riffs on Bond’s implausible durability and imagines alternatives—a centuries-old vampire spy, or a post–near-death Bond with OCD who grades every move—fresh premises that justify survival without speeches. Rosner cites The Accountant as adjacent but abrasive. Big franchises second-guess scripts for precision. Great actors prefer fewer, stronger lines; compress three sentences into one natural beat. Concision, novelty, and situational clarity make dialogue land and performances sing too.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: As a writer, what makes good dialogue in movies? And what’s an example of that?
Rick Rosner: I believe the secret to good dialogue is cutting. You write what you want the characters to say, and then you see how much you can remove. People, under normal circumstances, are concise. The saying is “show, don’t tell.” Too much exposition—or any exposition, really—is irritating. Don’t have a character say, “You’re my brother.” Find another way to make that relationship clear.
So conciseness is key to dialogue.
It also helps if the audience can easily follow what’s happening without being told directly. Movies are made of situations that people have seen before in other movies. If there’s a car chase, that implies there’s a car behind you chasing you. There’s always a point where someone notices they’re being pursued.
The standard line people use in those moments is, “We’ve got company.” It’s short, and it works, but it’s overused. Another line might be, “There’s someone behind us,” but “We’ve got company” is the cliché. It irritates some viewers because it’s what everyone always says.
So if there’s a way to show that without saying “We’ve got company,” people will appreciate it.
There’s another line that drives me crazy: when someone in a movie wants another person to hurry up, they say, “Chop, chop.” I hate that because it’s been used so often. I’ll give it a little leeway—it’s the kind of thing a jerk would say after hearing it in other movies—but still, try not to repeat what’s been said in a thousand scripts before.
Also, try to make situations unfold differently from how they’ve played out in countless other films.
I’ve been thinking about James Bond, where he often survives not just because he’s good at what he does but also because he’s lucky—and, honestly, more durable than is plausible.
I think we talked about the scene in the last Bond movie where someone sets a bomb trap for him. He gets blown up, flies through the air, but somehow he’s not torn apart. He gets up, dusts himself off, and gets into a car.
Then there’s the gunfight. Maybe Bond was supposed to be farther from the bomb, but mostly it’s that, because the plot required it, the bomb just didn’t blow him to pieces.
I’ve been thinking—again, for no good reason—about how to make James Bond more reasonable. I think about this sort of thing while I’m at the gym: how to create a Bond-like character who makes sense.
Let’s say there’s a vampire who’s been undead for about 350 years. He mostly keeps to himself, enjoying his existence, until he sees fascism sweeping across Europe. After centuries of ignoring the horrors of humanity, he decides this one looks particularly bad. So he volunteers to become a spy. He’s durable—vampires are hard to kill—and he’s got centuries of knowledge and experience. He’s also talented in the art of seduction, so a vampire would make a great World War II spy. You could blow him up, and he’d still survive.
That’s one idea. Another thing I’ve been thinking about—completely ridiculous, of course—is that Ian Fleming actually killed off James Bond. Fleming had written several books, but Bond wasn’t selling well. So at the end of From Russia with Love, he said, “To hell with it,” and killed Bond off. Then President John F. Kennedy publicly said that the Bond novels were his favorite books, and sales exploded.
So Fleming had to bring Bond back. At the end of From Russia with Love, the villain Rosa Klebb has a blade hidden in her shoe coated with poison. She kicks Bond and poisons him, and the book ends with him apparently dying. But in the next novel, You Only Live Twice, it’s revealed that Bond spent about a year in the hospital and barely survived—as the title suggests, he literally lived twice.
So I was thinking—what if a near-death experience like that gave Bond, or a Bond-type spy, obsessive-compulsive disorder?
Before almost getting killed, Bond is known for being careless, carefree, arrogantly unconcerned with protocol, probably a bit lazy, but naturally talented, skilled, lucky, and debonair. You never really see Bond training. Maybe somewhere in the series, but I don’t recall any scene where he’s practicing his skills.
But imagine a character like that who, after a near-death experience, becomes obsessive—OCD about perfecting every element of being himself. All the espionage skills, all the spycraft, all the fighting techniques—he becomes consumed with mastery.
I can relate. I have OCD tendencies myself. Every time I park my car, I give myself a letter grade based on how precisely I parked it. It’s surprisingly hard to park a car with real precision. Most people don’t know where their car actually is in space within six inches. If you watch drivers, they really have no idea how their car is positioned relative to other things. I’m better than most, but I still have trouble getting my car within two inches of where I want it.
That’s pretty OCD—every time I park, I give myself a grade. Usually B-plus, sometimes A-minus. That’s obsessive as hell. But imagine a spy like that—someone who, every time they get into a fight or pull off a mission, constantly evaluates their performance, grading themselves on how perfectly they executed it.
I don’t know—something like that would be interesting to me. There’s already a character somewhat like that in film. Ben Affleck plays a hitman with severe autism in The Accountant (2016). His condition makes him extremely meticulous as a killer but leaves him with almost no interpersonal skills. It works as a premise, but the character can come off as grating.
So, if you had a James Bond with OCD—or who had been knocked somewhere onto the spectrum—you’d still want to preserve his debonair quality. But now, in his newly obsessive way, he’d be grading himself on how successfully he’s being debonair. It’s an odd complication, maybe not interesting to anyone but me.
And that doesn’t really answer your question about dialogue. In general, though—whether it’s dialogue or anything else—do something different. Pretend every viewer has seen 5,000 other movies and doesn’t want to see the same recycled material. And that’s basically true.
If you make a movie where everything is strange just for the sake of being different, that’s annoying too. But you shouldn’t take any part of your dialogue, action, setting, or plot for granted. You should question every piece of it. That’s what happens with Marvel movies. If they’re spending 200 million dollars, they’ll have the main writers—and then a team of others—to second-guess them and make sure every detail is as refined as possible.
The less dialogue, the better. A good actor will look at their lines and suggest cuts, ways to say less. It takes a truly skilled actor to deliver three or four sentences in a row—to make a small speech—and have it sound natural rather than artificial.
If you can shorten those three or four sentences into one strong line, the actor’s job becomes easier. It’s simpler to say something naturally when it’s concise. It makes the actor look good, rather than like someone reciting a bunch of empty dialogue.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/16
How do Custer, Sand Creek, and residential schools reveal colonial violence—and why does it still feel so near?
Rick Rosner watches Antiques Roadshow and encounters a letter from the widow of General George Armstrong Custer. Rick Rosner recounts Custer’s role in the Indian Wars and the 1876 Little Bighorn defeat by Lakota, Northern Cheyenne, and Arapaho. He corrects a Boulder myth: Sand Creek’s massacre occurred near Eads, led by John Chivington, killing 150–230 women and children, after Fort Laramie and Fort Wise treaty betrayals. He links atrocities to Canada’s residential schools affecting 150,000 Indigenous children, recalls Phoenix Indian School, and notes the still close WWII memory. Future harms may be economic, political, or technological.
Rick Rosner: Carole and I were watching Antiques Roadshow before she fell asleep, and someone had an antique letter from the widow of General George Armstrong Custer.
Carole often complains that she had a terrible history teacher and doesn’t know any history. I explained to her who General Custer was—an American cavalry officer during the 19th century who became famous for his role in the Indian Wars—and she had no idea. I told her about how, during that period, Native American nations were continually pushed off their lands and massacred by U.S. forces.
In Custer’s case, the most famous event was the Battle of the Little Bighorn in 1876, when the Lakota Sioux, Northern Cheyenne, and Arapaho defeated his 7th Cavalry Regiment—a rare victory for Indigenous forces, though temporary.
Boulder, where we met and where I grew up, was sometimes said to be connected to the Sand Creek Massacre. When I looked it up, I realized that’s a common misconception. The massacre didn’t happen in Boulder—it occurred about 170 miles southeast, near present-day Eads, Colorado. Boulder is just where some of the archival material is stored. In November 1864, a force of about 675 volunteer cavalrymen under Colonel John Chivington attacked a peaceful encampment of Cheyenne and Arapaho people. Between 150 and 230 were killed, about two-thirds of them women and children.
The background was that an 1851 treaty at Fort Laramie had granted the Cheyenne and Arapaho extensive territory across what is now eastern Colorado. That arrangement unraveled after the 1858 Pike’s Peak Gold Rush brought thousands of settlers into the region. In 1861, a new treaty—known as the Treaty of Fort Wise—reduced their land by about 90 percent. Many tribal leaders refused to recognize it, arguing that those who signed were not authorized and had been bribed. Tensions and raids escalated until the Sand Creek Massacre, which horrified much of the country when the news spread and led to several official investigations condemning Chivington’s actions.
The history of the United States, while built on noble ideals, is also filled with atrocities. Canada’s history has its own version of this. From the late 19th century to the late 20th, about 150,000 First Nations, Métis, and Inuit children were forced to attend residential schools. Many suffered physical, sexual, and emotional abuse, and thousands died from neglect, disease, or mistreatment.
That’s the most widely accepted estimate today—about 150,000 children attended, and while not every experience was abusive, the system as a whole was coercive and destructive.
That’s part of our shared colonial history. I lived in Boulder eleven months of the year, and for one month I stayed with my dad and stepmother. The nearest main street to us was Indian School Road, named after the Phoenix Indian School in Arizona, one of the largest federal off-reservation boarding schools for Native Americans. It had a mixed legacy: some education and skills training, but also forced assimilation and punishment for speaking Indigenous languages.
It’s remarkable how close in time all of that is to us—the great slaughters of history. Many of them are almost within living memory. I was born only fifteen years after World War II.
The Civil War and the campaign to push Native Americans off their lands and kill them were both within reach of living memory in my family. My grandfather was born in 1905, which means that all of that had taken place only a few decades before he was born.
So that violence was still close in time—only about twenty or thirty years earlier.
And now we have the great slaughters of the future coming, probably within fifty years. I’m hoping they won’t be literal mass killings but rather people being pushed around in other ways—economically, politically, maybe technologically.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/15
Why would the Trump administration target college prep programs that support nearly a million low-income students across the U.S.?
In a discussion between Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner, the Trump administration’s decision to gut federally funded TRIO programs is examined as part of a broader pattern of policies harming low-income Americans. These initiatives, which serve around 900,000 students, provide critical college preparation for disadvantaged youth. Rosner highlights how the wealthy enjoy structural advantages—elite schools, guidance networks, and stable home environments—while cuts to TRIO exacerbate inequality. The conversation also touches on political repression, including visa revocations for critics of conservative figures, illustrating how educational and civil liberties are being undermined simultaneously.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: The Trump administration has been targeting college prep programs—both those backed by Democrats and even some supported by Republicans.
Rosner: What do you mean by “college prep programs”? Like high school curricula?
Jacobsen: Programs like TRIO, federally funded initiatives that help low-income students from middle school through college. The Trump administration reportedly fired almost 60 staff members connected to TRIO programs across the country. These layoffs affect about 900,000 students nationwide.
Rosner: So, mainly low-income students? Another “screw you” from Trump and the Republicans to the poor—because the Republican Party serves the interests of the wealthy.
And this fits into a pattern. The government shutdowns and budget fights over healthcare have the same underlying dynamic: punishing the vulnerable. If the Democrats don’t give in, tens of millions of Americans could see their health insurance premiums triple. People paying $5,000 or $6,000 a year for mediocre coverage—with high deductibles and partial reimbursement—could suddenly face $16,000 a year.
It’s not good coverage, but at least it keeps you from financial ruin if you get cancer or are in a major car accident. Without it, people would end up a million dollars in debt.
So yeah, cutting TRIO and similar programs is just another way to hurt poor people.
Why would they even want to eliminate those programs?
My wife has worked in admissions at two private high schools in Los Angeles, and both of us have helped our kid navigate college prep and applications. We’ve also advised other families. One thing we know for certain: it’s a huge advantage to be affluent when getting your kid into college—or even preparing them for it.
She’s worked at schools where tuition is over $50,000 a year. There’s a massive correlation between parental wealth and student success. And that’s not mysterious—it’s structural.
If you go to an underfunded inner-city high school, you’re lucky if there’s even one admissions counselor for 2,000 students. They’re overworked, underpaid, and probably don’t have connections with college admissions offices. Meanwhile, wealthy schools have entire departments for this.
So the system compounds inequality before a kid even submits an application. It’s a head start for the rich disguised as meritocracy. Maybe not, but at rich schools, people have connections. The counselors often have friends in admissions offices at top universities. When it comes time for applications, they can call up and do some special pleading.
Also, if you come from a wealthy family, your home environment usually supports learning. There’s structure, quiet, and time. If you’re one of three kids raised by a single mother working three jobs to make fifty thousand a year, she’s rarely home. Most of your conversations are with siblings—kids yelling at each other while the TV’s on.
But if you grow up in a household with two parents making two hundred grand a year, you probably have dinner together most nights. You might be an only child, or one of two, and the discussions at the table are more adult. The reading material in the house is higher level. The general tone of the home encourages learning.
College admissions in the U.S. are incredibly skewed. When I applied to college forty-some years ago, about twenty percent of applicants got into elite schools. Now, at some places, it’s three percent. That’s because everyone with even a slight chance applies to all the top schools—it’s easy now with online applications.
Fifty years ago, a kid might apply to three or four schools. Now, competitive students apply to fifteen or sixteen. Harvard gets around fifty thousand applications a year. Just applying costs money—fifty to a hundred dollars per school—so if a low-income family applies to a dozen schools, that’s over a thousand dollars just in fees.
There’s a very strong correlation between SAT scores and parental income. Wealthier, intact, upper-middle-class families have enormous advantages in preparing their kids for college. The schools are better, the test prep is better, the guidance is better, and the home environment reinforces all of it.
So when the Trump administration cuts programs like TRIO—affecting around nine hundred thousand low-income students—it’s devastating. That’s almost a million students.
There are around four to five million kids in each age cohort in the U.S.—four or five million seventeen-year-olds, four or five million eighteen-year-olds. So nine hundred thousand students across several grades is a significant fraction of all kids who could be preparing for college. It’s not trivial—it’s a major impact.
And while that’s happening, Trump’s still somehow having a “triumphant” moment. After the Gaza ceasefire, his approval rating even ticked up. It’s surreal—he keeps doing damaging things: the government shutdown, economic cruelty, stalling the release of the Epstein files—and still manages to get praise.
The Department of Homeland Security recently revoked the visas of six foreign nationals because they criticized Charlie Kirk online. That’s insane. People have reportedly been hassled reentering the U.S. for having anti-Trump posts on their phones. So, yeah, maybe at some point we should talk about how much political complaining I should do publicly. I love the hell out of America—but I don’t love the current leadership.
Talking about Charlie Kirk—look, it’s not nice to wish anyone harm. He was brutally assassinated, which was monstrous and inexcusable. But revoking someone’s visa just because they criticized him, a private citizen, seems deeply wrong.
If I wanted to say I don’t like an author—say, Eric Van Lustbader—I should be allowed to. I’ve read a bit of his work, and it annoys me. That’s my right. Nobody should lose entry to a country because they said something critical about a private citizen. It’s absurd.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/16
Why does Rick Rosner openly discuss his butt, poop, and anti-aging pills with journalist Scott Douglas Jacobsen—and what does it reveal about health, shame, and science?
In this candid and darkly funny conversation, Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen navigate topics few would dare mix—bodily quirks, gut biology, aging, and self-improvement. Rosner begins by unpacking his compulsive skin-picking habit and the medical realities of hemorrhoid surgery and anal fissures with clinical precision and self-deprecating humor. The discussion then shifts to the biology of feces, the evolutionary disgust response, and a dog’s poop-eating habits linked to Cushing’s disease. From there, Rosner reflects on moviegoing, Kevin Smith’s unlikely romance, and the virtues of artificial sweeteners. The talk ends with longevity science—fisetin, curcumin, and rapamycin—offered as modern elixirs for an aging body and restless mind.
Rick Rosner: We should talk about my butt.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Please no. Why?
Rosner: I’m a picker. In clinical terms, it’s close to “excoriation (skin-picking) disorder.” Some autistic people “stim”—that’s self-stimulation to regulate attention—and picking can serve that function for some of us. Chewing gum might help, right?
But for the last decade or more, I’ve been running my hands over myself looking for things to pick. If I wake up at two or three a.m., I start doing that, which is bad, because the area I usually check is the underwear line. That area gets friction and sweat, which can cause folliculitis—pimple-like bumps—and then I pick them. A 65-year-old man shouldn’t have picked spots on his butt. Not that I even have much of a butt anymore. I weigh less than I used to—about twenty percent down.
Even though I try to shove a bunch of protein into myself—powder, shakes, everything—today Consumer Reports came out with a report saying that many brands of that stuff are high in lead and other heavy metals like arsenic and cadmium. But I don’t think I eat or drink enough of it to really mess me up.
So no matter how much protein I consume, still no butt. Fat and muscle atrophy with age and weight loss, so it just flattens out. That’s the butt report: not much of a butt, but plenty of places where I’ve attacked it.
Jacobsen: Anything else?
Rosner: Not about my butt.
Jacobsen: Complaints?
Rosner: I’m complaining about my complaining. I shouldn’t pick my butt. My nails are in good shape now because I don’t bite them anymore. Doing both would be unsanitary. Touching the perianal area and then rubbing my eyes can transfer bacteria or viruses and cause conjunctivitis—pink eye. I’m not fiddling with my butthole, though.
They took those out a few years ago, which helped a lifelong problem. What they removed was hemorrhoidal tissue and some anoderm—basically the skin and mucosa near the anus—not the “colon wall.” One possible complication is anal stenosis, or narrowing, if too much tissue is removed. That can make stools thinner and lead to anal fissures, which are small tears.
So after surgery, the diameter of my bowel movements went from normal—about two centimeters—to more like a cigar, maybe one to one-and-a-half centimeters. Recently I tore my butthole passing a normal-sized stool. That’s an anal fissure—just another thing going on with my butt.
Jacobsen: Why is poop the way it is, rather than something clean and machine-like? We humans make messy waste.
Rosner: Until about ten years ago, people weren’t very concerned about the bacteria in their gut. Now we know better. By the time you make a bowel movement, you’re not the only one “eating” the food in your digestive tract. Trillions of bacteria are also feasting on that same food. Many of them are beneficial, but by the time the stool leaves your body, it’s mostly bacteria, water, fiber, and waste products.
It’s definitely not good to get those bacteria anywhere else in your body, like your eyes—that’s how you get pink eye. We’ve evolved to stay the hell away from our feces. Once it comes out, the smell is revolting to us, which is evolutionarily useful. But to flies, it must smell fantastic, because there’s still plenty of organic matter left to eat.
One of our dogs has even eaten her own poop before. She has Cushing’s disease, which causes the adrenal glands to produce too much cortisol for too long. When it was untreated, she burned a huge number of calories, so she’d eat her feces. We got the Cushing’s under control, and she doesn’t do that as much anymore—though her breath is still terrible.
Jacobsen: The brown dog—you mean that one? I’ve met her. I’ve met both of them, actually. I’ve got stories about those dogs.
Rosner: Then tell one.
Jacobsen: I don’t want to.
Rosner: Come on, tell one.
Jacobsen: Fine. I was using your bathroom once—it’s small—and I was taking a big poop. There’s that little dog door for the tiny dog, the one you’re talking about. I’m sitting there, doing my business, kind of zoning out, and suddenly the dog gets really excited outside, bursts through the door, and just stands there staring at me. I look down at her, look back up, and she’s still staring. We had this weirdly intimate moment of mutual confusion—like, “Why are you in here?” “Why are you in here?” Then she spun around and trotted back out.
Rosner: That’s the zoomies. It’s when a dog suddenly gets excited for no reason and just runs around like crazy. We’re happy she still gets the zoomies, because she’s fifteen now. It’s kind of heartwarming to see her still able to run around like an idiot. She doesn’t understand much—dogs don’t in general—and she especially doesn’t. But she’s sweet. All right, enough about poop, butts, and everything. Rotten tomatoes.
Jacobsen: What’s your opinion of Kevin Smith’s movies—Clerks, Mallrats—since he has clever things to say about some of these topics?
Rosner: I’ve seen a few of them, not all, and they’re generally pretty entertaining. But I saw them at a time when I was more patient with movies. My wife and I used to see almost every major release. We went to so many screenings every weekend. Back then, people would stand outside malls in New York handing out passes to advance screenings. You’d watch the movie before release, and they’d ask your opinion to help decide how to market it or whether to edit anything.
We saw a ton of films that way. But now that we’re older, we’re less patient. We’ve seen so many movies that we get annoyed with mediocre ones much faster. So, as for Kevin Smith’s films—I enjoyed them back then. If I watched them again now, would I enjoy them as much? I’m not sure.
One time, I was walking down Hollywood Boulevard behind a willowy, obviously model-esque woman and a somewhat heavyset guy. They were clearly together—boyfriend and girlfriend, or husband and wife—from their body language. What immediately popped into my head was Kevin Smith. Because he’s a director, he’s funny, and I thought, “What could overcome being chunky and still land a willowy girlfriend?” The answer was simple: being Kevin Smith.
I walked past them, looked back—and it was Kevin Smith. I felt very pleased with myself.
So, the lesson? Never give up. If you want a willowy girlfriend, pursue your dreams. If you do well enough, maybe you can have that. And now there’s Ozempic, which is a much easier way to get less chunky.
But nothing against him for being heavy. He’s talented, funny, a good director, and a good writer.
Jacobsen: What’s your opinion on artificial sweeteners—Diet Pops, Stevia, Splenda, Aspartame, that sort of thing?
Rosner: I use them a lot.
Jacobsen: From what I’ve seen in the research, even when people claim they’re toxic, you’d have to consume absurd quantities for it to matter.
Rosner: When they tested saccharin on rats back in the sixties, they were basically feeding the animals half their body weight in saccharin. Of course that made them sick. I use maybe two packets of stevia or Truvia a day in my coffee. I just hope, first, that it doesn’t mess me up in some weird way, and second, that my body doesn’t interpret it as sugar and spike my blood glucose anyway. I don’t think it does. There aren’t enough calories in there to matter. Who knows, but I trust that by using artificial sweeteners, I’m doing less harm than if I used the equivalent sweetness of sugar.
Jacobsen: Have you mostly given up on your “peak pills” regimen?
Rosner: Not entirely, but I’ve gotten lazy about it. I used to lay out my pills for months at a time, but I ran out about a month ago—maybe longer. Now I’m just taking them straight from the bottles I have on hand. I really need to get my act together and reload my pill organizers.
I’m way down from my peak—at one point, I was taking close to seventy pills a day. Now, when I’m fully stocked and organized, it’s more like thirty-something pills a day. I’m off “peak pills,” but I still take a lot when I’m organized enough. My favorite right now is fisetin—especially for someone my age. Fisetin is a senolytic, meaning it encourages senescent cells—old, malfunctioning cells that the body hasn’t cleared—to undergo apoptosis, or programmed cell death.
As you get older, that clearing system weakens. Those old cells pile up, increase inflammation, and drain resources. Some even become precancerous. Fisetin helps remind those cells to self-destruct and get cleared out.
The dosing pattern is intermittent: you take a high dose, wait a few days, and then take another. You don’t need it daily. Some people do it weekly, biweekly, or monthly. You just need to get in there and deliver the reminder dose.
I’ve been taking a lot of that stuff lately. I also like curcumin—it’s an anti-inflammatory compound derived from turmeric.
Quite a bit. I like stuff that actually has studies showing some efficacy. There’s at least some evidence behind it.
Resveratrol is good, except not really, because your digestive system wipes most of it out. Maybe one percent ever reaches your bloodstream. Fisetin’s similar, but you can buy it encapsulated in lipids. That means they take the fisetin powder and emulsify it—basically mix it—with good fats like omega-3s from fish oil. The fat forms a droplet around the fisetin, protecting it from stomach acid so it makes it further into your digestive tract. The further it travels, the less likely it is to get filtered out by the liver and the more likely it is to be absorbed into your bloodstream.
That fatty version of fisetin can increase absorption by maybe five to twenty times. Same with curcumin. You can buy fancy lipid-encapsulated curcumin too.
If you’re really hardcore—like a billionaire tech bro—you don’t take fisetin orally. You’ve got a doctor or nurse on staff to inject it directly into your bloodstream. Resveratrol, curcumin, fisetin—all are much more effective when injected intravenously.
I haven’t looked into what it would take to get the equipment or supplies to inject myself. And I definitely don’t have the money for a full concierge medical setup. LeBron James supposedly spends around a million dollars a year on physical maintenance—training, nutrition, therapy, medical monitoring, the works. That number sounds exaggerated, but look at him: the guy’s forty, built like an NFL player, six-foot-eight or six-foot-nine, and could probably bench around 315 pounds. That’s impressive strength for his size and age.
So maybe it’s not an exaggeration. If he can spend a million a year, I could probably justify ten or twenty grand to have a doctor or nurse inject me with longevity compounds once a week. But I don’t. It just feels like too much—even if maybe it isn’t. Who knows?
I signed up for rapamycin. It’s technically an antibiotic, but it’s used off-label as a longevity drug. When you give it to animals—mice, worms, that sort of thing—you can double their lifespan or extend it by forty percent, even if they’re already old.
So I did that for about a month or two. Rapamycin has to be prescribed by a doctor, and it costs around $300 a month. I eventually found out that, based on some other health issues, maybe I shouldn’t keep taking it. So that’s the closest I’ve come to any kind of boutique anti-aging therapy.
But in America, if you want to spend one, two, or even five thousand dollars a month on fancy anti-aging treatments—you can. And maybe some of them work. I’m just not at that point.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/14
How does Rick Rosner connect personal priorities, U.S. science policy, and global economic dynamics in his latest discussion with Scott Douglas Jacobsen?
In this reflective conversation, Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen move from aging and personal focus to major global and political issues. Rosner contemplates stepping back from high-range IQ testing at age 65, emphasizing time’s finite nature. The dialogue pivots to NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory layoffs, U.S. anti-science politics, and the decline of public enthusiasm for space exploration. Discussion then shifts to JPMorgan Chase’s $1.5 trillion investment pledge and the geopolitical competition between the U.S., China, and India. Rosner criticizes policy failures that stifle innovation and warns that anti-intellectualism threatens America’s scientific and economic competitiveness.
IQ Tests
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Any new thoughts or feelings to start today?
Rick Rosner: My days of taking super-hard IQ tests might be over.
Jacobsen: What do you mean?
Rosner: I am 65, and I still have things I want to do. That means I cannot spend 150 hours on a test in the hopes of breaking my previous high score. Also, you mentioned earlier that a couple of people have scored over 200 on specific unsupervised “high-range” IQ tests—not on standard, normed IQ scales.
I know the effort it took for me to get close to 200, and if I had unlimited time, maybe I would take a shot. However, I waste enough time as it is, so adding another opportunity to waste time when there is stuff I should be doing seems ill-advised. It isn’t the best use of my time, given the clock is ticking.
It ticks on us all, but somebody who is 65 probably has fewer ticks of the clock than someone who is 35 or 38. You do a lot. You do a lot every day. I spent four hours shingling a little library that’s four square feet of roofing.
Jacobsen: I have seen it. It is very lovely.
Rosner: And it has a nice shingled roof now, which should be much more water-resistant than the previous one. It was getting worn.
Jacobsen: I talked with Carole about it when I last visited. I was looking at it and describing how nice it was when I was there, noting that a few touch-ups were still needed at the time. However, yes, it is nice. I am sure you made it even nicer.
Rosner: Yes, but everything takes longer than you think it will. I could have hired someone. Plus, that little library is almost 12 years old, so yes, it needs maintenance.
Jacobsen: All right, let’s shift gears. NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory announced on Monday, October 13th, according to Reuters, that it plans to cut nearly 550 jobs. Not that it has yet, but that it intends to, as part of a restructuring. These cuts are not related to the current U.S. government shutdown.
The Jet Propulsion Laboratory is the only federally funded research and development center operated for NASA. It has designed, built, and operated all five of the successful rovers that have gone to the surface of Mars.
Rosner: That’s bad news. I don’t know if it’s the worst news, but it’s definitely discouraging.
They said it’s not a consequence of the current administration’s anti-science tendencies, but it’s hard not to wonder. That’s many jobs—probably more than 10 percent of their workforce.
Maybe they’re trying to save money for the next few years of political instability. Or perhaps they’re reallocating funds for lunar or deep-space missions. I don’t know enough to comment intelligently, but it’s concerning.
It’s essential to keep exploring space. But since I was a kid, other priorities have come up. Still, I don’t think it’s a zero-sum game. Money that’s saved by cutting space exploration doesn’t automatically end up funding other areas of science. That’s ridiculous. NASA should continue to be adequately funded.
The Jet Propulsion Laboratory is closely tied to NASA. I’m not sure if this restructuring is related to Elon Musk and SpaceX taking resources that might otherwise go to JPL, as I don’t know enough about the situation. But in general, it’s not good.
And the trend since 2017—and honestly, even before that—hasn’t been promising. We haven’t set foot on the Moon since 1972. While part of that achievement was symbolic, tied to fulfilling President Kennedy’s vision, it also drove enormous technological progress.
We continue to gain technological benefits here on Earth from space exploration. So any pullback sounds bad. Again, I can’t comment in detail because I don’t know exactly what’s happening, but when I was a kid, space exploration was the cutting edge of science. Yes, computer science was developing at the same time, but it wasn’t yet visible in the way it is now. The Moon landings were splashy—they captured public imagination more than computing technology did.
Over the next ten years—and certainly over the next fifty—digital technology became the more exciting frontier, and probably one that delivers more practical outcomes right now. But it shouldn’t come at the expense of space exploration—both matter.
I have a political tangent. Maybe I mentioned it yesterday, but Trump is a terrible person—not a wise man—and he makes terrible political and economic decisions on behalf of the nation. They’re often vengeful. He might be the dumbest and worst president we’ve ever had.
However, if this Middle East ceasefire he’s brokered actually holds, that’s a big deal. If his involvement really contributed to ending the conflict—or even pausing it meaningfully—that’s significant. He’s going to brag about it in his awful, self-aggrandizing way, but still, maybe it’s the best thing he’s done during his time as president.
It’s partly because it’s genuinely good, and partly because everything else he’s done has been awful. But it’s still a good thing. There’s a kind of “Trump derangement syndrome” that MAGA supporters accuse liberals of having—that they can’t acknowledge anything good he’s done. In this case, something good might actually have happened.
Even though he’s done it in his braggy, obnoxious way, that said, I read that when Biden was president, 140 hostages were released by Hamas, and under Trump, 28 were released. So, should Biden get some credit, too?
I don’t know. Biden certainly got attacked enough for continuing to supply weapons and other aid to Israel, some to Gaza as well. The Gaza situation significantly contributed to Harris losing the election. But here’s Trump, and… I don’t know. Anyway, it’s a good thing.
You’ve been around—you’ve talked to people all over the world.
JPMorgan Chase America Investment
Jacobsen: Yes, now, next topic: JPMorgan Chase announced plans on Monday to hire bankers and invest over $10 billion in American companies critical to national security and economic resilience. This is part of a broader $1.5 trillion, ten-year initiative aimed at facilitating financing and investment in industries central to American economic growth.
Rosner: So let me see if I understand this correctly. JPMorgan Chase represents investors with $1.5 trillion to invest in American industry, and it’s hiring bankers to ensure that money is invested most effectively—is that right?
Jacobsen: The $1.5 trillion is a pledge, meaning a prospective financial contribution over ten years. They expect to raise that amount from various investors—people or institutions- that JPMorgan Chase believes it can convince to invest with them. The goal is to direct that capital toward the most promising sectors of U.S. research and industry.
Rosner: Okay, that’s not a bad thing. If anyone knows how to get investors—or has access to the right networks—it’s Jamie Dimon and JPMorgan Chase. I’m not sure what the U.S. GDP is per year, but it’s on the order of tens of trillions of dollars. So, relative to that, this is a significant investment.
I don’t know China’s current GDP or the level of investment they’re coordinating, but I looked up some figures: China has 145 industrial cities with populations over a million. The U.S. has about eleven. China has eighteen towns with populations over ten million; the U.S. has none. China is a juggernaut.
India has the potential to be a juggernaut too—if they can get their systems together. Fareed
Jacobsen: Zakaria disagrees somewhat; he says India will continue to grow, but too sluggishly to match the pace of the U.S. or China. On a per-capita basis, America is still ahead, of course.
Rosner: I guess what I’m saying is that the U.S. needs all the help it can get, because our current government doesn’t know what it’s doing. It talks as if it’s pro-development, but many of its policies actually hinder development within the U.S. Take the H-1B visa situation—Trump’s policies made it absurdly expensive to hire international talent.
If you want to hire a skilled engineer from outside the U.S.—from India or China, for instance—you might pay them $200,000 a year because they’re highly talented. On top of that, you’re effectively paying the government another $100,000 in costs and fees for the visa.
Or Madagascar—or wherever they’re from—you still have to pay the government another hundred grand to have them work for you. That’s anti-industry. It’s anti-development. It’s nonsense. We’ve developed policies that actively discourage cherry-picking the best talent from around the world.
Programs like this JPMorgan Chase initiative may help. If the government continues to bury its head in the sand, private industry and banking will have to step in to give us any chance to compete with the other major economic juggernauts of the world.
Ideally, we’d have a government that remembers what the United States did after Sputnik in 1957. The Soviet Union launched the first satellite, and the U.S. panicked—rightly so, in a Cold War context. That panic led to massive investment in math and science education. For the next twenty or thirty years, we surged forward.
Then, over the next thirty years, that momentum collapsed. We ended up with a generation of Republican ideologues who found it easier to manipulate anti-intellectual voters than to invest in knowledge. Now, half the country is skeptical of science. If we’re going to compete with China—or any technologically ambitious nation—we need to reduce the influence of anti-science forces in American politics.
And who said India is too sluggish?
Jacobsen: Fareed Zakaria.
Rosner: Well, he can say that—but India is now the most populous nation on Earth, with roughly four times our population. Even if the country as a whole is slow, individual enterprises can still be dynamic and competitive. With 1.4 billion people, you have an enormous talent pool.
Lee Kuan Yew Beyond the Grave
Jacobsen: Lee Kuan Yew once put it this way before he died: if you spread a message in modern China, in Mandarin, it will reach the entire country. People identify as Chinese first, and then as Han or other ethnicities second. There are local tensions, but national identity takes precedence, and a singular language with dialects facilitates communication.
In India, communication doesn’t flow the same way. Speak one primary language, and your reach is partial—you need translation. Add to that religious divides between Hindus and Muslims, politicized religion in Hindutva similar to America’s Christian Right and MAGA movement, and a rigid caste system—all of it fragments communication and national coherence.
Rosner: Even if those factors reduce India’s overall efficiency by 50 or 70 percent, that still leaves hundreds of millions of competent people. But another drag on India’s growth is brain drain—many of its talented people leave the country. Do they mostly come to the U.S.?
Jacobsen: Not necessarily. They can travel to over 192 member states.
Rosner: China’s probably quite welcoming. I’d bet China makes it easy for skilled foreigners to come, live in a penthouse, drive an electric SUV, go clubbing—in short, to enjoy the high-tech urban life.
Across China’s 145 industrial cities with over a million residents, and its eighteen megacities with over ten million, there’s a distinct “future” aesthetic. I asked AI today if China looks like Blade Runner. The answer was, “In some cities, yes.” And it does—it seems like the future.
Does the U.S. look like the future? I’m not sure. Does the rest of Asia? Possibly. Between India’s 1.4 billion people, China’s 1.4 billion, and another 800 million spread across Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Vietnam, Taiwan, Japan, and the rest of East Asia, there’s staggering talent there.
Eventually, Africa will become the next primary source of human capital—it’ll be the only continent with a growing population after 2050. The U.S., meanwhile, isn’t politically poised to compete right now. Our politicians are, frankly, yahoos.
Jacobsen: I’ve got to go.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/13
Do GOP claims about ACA fraud and immigrant coverage distract from inflation, debt, and tariff risks?
Vice President J.D. Vance argues ACA tax credits invite insurance fraud as Democrats seek an extension to end the shutdown. Rick Rosner counters that Republican leaders increasingly lie, including about federal coverage for undocumented immigrants, which has been barred since the 1996 welfare reform. Scott Douglas Jacobsen raises debt concerns, citing roughly $38 trillion. Rosner says voters care more about inflation and benefits than debt itself. He warns tariffs are inflationary, noting a market drop after a proposed 100% China tariff and harm to soybean exports, notably this year. The dollar’s recent slide is relative; domestically, Americans still meet needs despite turbulence.
ACA Tax Credits
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Vice President J.D. Vance claims Affordable Care Act tax credits fuel fraud as Democrats push for an extension to end the government shutdown. Vance also called for regulatory reform, saying on CBS News’ Face the Nation: “The tax credits go to some people deservedly. We [see that] the tax credits actually go to a lot of waste and fraud within the insurance industry. So we want to make sure the tax credits go to people who deserve them.”
Rick Rosner: Republicans—especially much of their leadership and many in Congress—no longer feel compelled to tell the truth. They just lie wherever they think they can get away with it now. I don’t know if it’s unprecedented in U.S. history, but it’s certainly something that hasn’t happened in my lifetime. They just go on television and tell lies. Sometimes they’re called out, sometimes they’re not, and it doesn’t matter—they just keep going.
The lie that they’re fighting to stop money from going to provide health insurance to undocumented immigrants is one of many. As far as I know, it’s illegal to provide federal health insurance to undocumented immigrants. That restriction dates back to the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, signed by President Bill Clinton, not Reagan. Republicans have been repeating this false claim throughout this shutdown and earlier.
They’re in charge of parts of government and also cornered politically because they’re afraid of various investigations—Epstein files among them. The result is a toxic mix of arrogance and desperation, which leads them to keep saying whatever serves their narrative.
Rising National Debt
Jacobsen: The debate between Democrats and Republicans keeps avoiding the country’s biggest structural issue: the rising national debt and the long-term financial health of Social Security and Medicare. The U.S. national debt is currently around $38 trillion. Any thoughts on this?
Rosner: It’s not the number one problem for most Americans. The top concern is their own economic situation. Most Americans don’t care about the national debt in itself—they care about what follows from it, like inflation. They care about Social Security and Medicare.
The United States can fund all of these programs—Social Security, Medicare, whatever else—because we can print more money and sell more debt. But doing that is highly inflationary. Still, the U.S. economy is so large and resilient that even after repeated shocks—such as those caused by Trump’s bad decisions—it remains fundamentally healthy.
We’re somewhat insulated from the kind of hyperinflation you see in weaker economies. Historically, one of the worst examples wasn’t the fastest but the most devastating: Germany in the early 1920s during the Weimar Republic, when hyperinflation wiped out the middle class and destabilized society.
That hyperinflation led to Hitler and World War II. It was probably around 10,000 percent per year or something close to that. When the U.S. experiences bad inflation, it might hit 7 percent—and that alone angers Americans.
We might be hit with inflation again because of the tariffs. Trump knocked the stock market down by nearly 2 percent on Friday after announcing a 100 percent tariff on China—again.
Jacobsen: Do you know why? I haven’t paid any attention as to why he did that.
Rosner: Well, he just does things like that. It tanks the stock market and hurts farmers. Last year, American farmers sold about $18 billion worth of soybeans to China; this year, virtually none.
So, the national debt itself doesn’t concern people. What they care about is how the economy affects their own finances. The U.S. dollar has fallen roughly 10 or 11 percent so far this year, but that’s relative to other currencies. Domestically, people can still buy what they need and not feel the pinch immediately.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/13
How do ceasefire fragility, ICC politics, women’s representation in China, and an accelerating AI arms race intersect to shape global risk and human rights today?
Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner range from roof repairs to world repairs. They discuss the fragility of Israel–Hamas ceasefires, contested ICC warrant actions involving Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant, and the staggering toll on journalists in Gaza. Jacobsen notes patterns of ceasefire violations and hopes hostages return while Palestinians gain relief. They examine Xi Jinping’s remarks on women in governance, the legacy of the 1995 Beijing Declaration, and gaps between rhetoric and implementation. Finally, they compare today’s AI arms race to nuclear escalation, warning that incentives to accelerate outstrip safety, and leadership competence remains the decisive, missing ingredient today.
Carole’s Little Library
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Any complaints or comments for the day?
Rick Rosner: I shingled the roof of Carole’s little library. Any kind of home improvement chore just takes three times as long as you estimate.
You have to seal the underlayment, put down the tar paper, measure and cut the shingles, and nail them in the right place. Even though I was only doing four square feet of roof, it took two and a half hours, which is ridiculous.
Maybe if I were an experienced roofer with proper tools, it would be different. Shopping for the nails and getting the right ones took twelve to fifteen minutes because there are so many different kinds. It’s the rule of three: take the time you think it will take and then triple it.
Jacobsen: What’s happening? Looking at the American news for today, or world news. They’re supposed to release—Hamas is supposed to release—some of the hostages. Everyone’s waiting to see if the peace holds.
Rosner: What do you think? You’ve been over there. You’ve talked to people.
Jacobsen: People seem sincere about wanting peace, but peace in the sense of at least a ceasefire. It’s like winning and not losing not being the same thing. Ceasefire and peace are partly the same, partly not. The history of ceasefires between Israel and armed groups in the Palestinian territories is terrible. If you go by history, you should expect a violation of the ceasefire—either from an armed group out of Gaza or elsewhere in Palestinian territory, or from the IDF. If it happens, it’s more likely to be the IDF; that tends to be the pattern, not always, but generally.
Rosner: The tendency is to behave as if they have impunity.
Jacobsen: There’s a lot of context around the ICC warrant from Pre-Trial Chamber I of the International Criminal Court, which issued arrest warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant, but not for Mahmoud Abbas. Domestically, Netanyahu has faced multiple corruption charges, including breach of trust and fraud. There would be reason to continue conflicts to avoid some of that, at least from a leadership perspective. But in terms of getting hostages back, giving Palestinians some relief from killings, and from a journalistic perspective—seeing fewer journalists die in Gaza is a good thing. As of September 2025, at least about 189 journalists and media workers had been killed since October 2023, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists. That’s not talked about much, but it will likely shake up journalistic opinion.
Press Murders
Rosner: They wear press vests, hats, and clearly labeled gear. They make it very obvious who they are, and that doesn’t stop Israel from killing them.
Jacobsen: Theoretically, you can also manipulate numbers on killings. You can shoot someone in the knee—maim or dismember but not kill. Then they return to society unable to work. There are probably many such cases in different conflicts. I’m hopeful, like everyone else, but the history is not encouraging. At a minimum, the hostages will come back and return to Israeli society and their loved ones, which is really good. There will be some relief for Palestinians from ongoing suffering.
Jacobsen: On the international news front, there’s a lot of focus on how President Xi Jinping of the People’s Republic of China has said there should be more women in governance. That’s a good statement. What are your thoughts on it?
Rosner: Have they made statements like this before, or is this new for the Chinese government?
Jacobsen: It’s interesting. I don’t know the gender makeup of their leadership—I don’t expect it’s very good—but the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action was adopted in 1995, and its 30-year review (Beijing+30) was marked in 2025 at CSW69 with a new political declaration. These are periodic reviews rather than renewals every five years.
The Beijing Declaration has probably produced more impact than any other rights document ever. Every five years, they hold a review session. This year was one of those review years at the Commission on the Status of Women. So it has been about thirty years since its adoption and twenty-five years of renewals. They’ve certainly been involved in some of the key points of gender equality.
Whether those statements have translated into real-world implementation is probably another question.
Incompetent Regime
Rosner: I have two thoughts. One is that, as an American living under an incompetent regime, I want other countries’ governance—especially China’s—to be terrible too, so we don’t fall too far behind until we can get decent leadership back in America, if that’s even possible.
On the other hand, from a human rights point of view, shutting down half the population by excluding women from participation is disastrous. I don’t know what the actual conditions are for Chinese women, or if it’s even desirable to be part of the Chinese government. But it would be great if we could compete squarely with China. Right now, we have idiots in charge, which disadvantages everyone in America.
I’ve heard—and I think you’d probably agree from people who know China—that China had pretty dysfunctional leadership for a while, and now it seems to be improving.
Jacobsen: Yes, they did a massive crackdown on corruption, as far as I know, but with an absolute slant towards maintenance of Jinping’s power structure and governance.
Rosner: And with technology spinning out of control, I’m not even sure what competent leadership would look like. It may turn out that competent leadership would actually shut down AI development as much as possible until we can get a better handle on it. But I don’t think either country is putting meaningful limits on AI.
AI Incentives
Jacobsen: There’s a huge disincentive to impose limits. In fact, there’s an even bigger incentive to accelerate.
Rosner: It’s an arms race with something that’s going to be smarter than us and doesn’t even need to be conscious to behave in dangerous ways, because it’s trained on human data.
You could liken it to the arms race in the 1950s and 1960s—the nuclear arms race between the United States and the Soviet Union—where we kept building more and more warheads, more and more powerful nukes. That could only go on for so long. It was mostly over by the late 1950s, because there’s very limited use for a 50-megaton nuclear warhead.
You drop five megatons on a city and everyone’s dead. You drop fifty, and everyone’s still dead—just with a bigger hole in the ground. Whether it’s 500 feet deep or 700 feet deep, it’s still a crater.
That part of the arms race ended, but then they developed MIRVs—Multiple Independently Targetable Reentry Vehicles—which allowed a single missile to carry eight warheads that could strike different targets. That continued until the early to mid-1960s, when both the U.S. and the Soviet Union had about 7,000 nuclear warheads each.
Since then, we’ve calmed down somewhat, but we still each have roughly 1,700 deployed warheads—enough to destroy the planet several times over. So we’re still in danger with nuclear weapons, and now we’re going to endanger ourselves again with AI.
And I don’t know—is there any country in the world that could actually make a difference? The big countries have the big companies. If Estonia were to put limits on AI, it wouldn’t mean anything.
It’s bad luck—and maybe not entirely luck—that we have the dumbest president in history at a time when we’re engineering the next entities that will be the smartest on the planet.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/12
How is Trump’s second administration shaping U.S. governance, cultural conflict, and institutional integrity?
Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner discuss the deepening dysfunction in Trump’s second administration, where loyalty eclipses competence. Rosner contrasts the current team of sycophants with earlier figures like Rex Tillerson, who at least understood governance. The dialogue explores the implications of Dan Scavino’s appointment, the government shutdown’s legal tangles, and symbolic flashpoints such as Stone Mountain’s Confederate carving. Rosner criticizes politicized firings, university crackdowns, and misinformation around Trump’s health. Together, they frame a portrait of a nation slipping toward authoritarian theater—where spectacle overtakes substance and institutional trust erodes beneath partisan zeal.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: This is news to me. Dan Scavino is going to lead the White House Presidential Personnel Office. He’s also serving as Deputy Chief of Staff and is Trump’s longtime social media aide.
Rick Rosner: In general, one significant negative difference between Trump Administration Two and Trump Administration One is that in the first, he had some competent people who were interested in governing, like Rex Tillerson, for instance, who served as Secretary of State for about a year. He ran Exxon. He was a big CEO—maybe not the nicest guy in the world, which you wouldn’t expect from someone running a huge oil company—but at least he was competent and not committed to tearing down the government.
This time around, it’s all Trump loyalists, which means they’re generally underqualified—sometimes straight-up idiots. Not entirely sycophants, but certainly leaning that way. The people around Trump are even worse this time than they were eight years ago. And nobody cares about any of the ideals that modern America was built on.
We’ve had a reasonably regular government since World War II, even before that. America has been a pretty good place for many people—with plenty of room for improvement, of course. But the changes Trump is making—none of those make America any better.
That being said, he may have done something worthwhile by helping to broker a Gaza ceasefire. If it holds, he probably deserves some credit for that, though I haven’t seen a deep analysis of it. I’m sure if you look more closely, there’s plenty of unsavoury stuff to take into account. But at least on the surface, with the ceasefire in effect, Israel isn’t actively conducting large-scale strikes, and if Hamas stands down and turns over some of the remaining hostages who are still alive, that’s a good thing.
Jacobsen: At Georgia’s Stone Mountain, there’s been a fight over a Confederate tribute—a vast image of three Confederate leaders carved into the granite face of the mountain. The carvings have towered over the countryside near Atlanta since the 1970s, honouring those who fought for the Southern cause in the U.S. Civil War.
Rosner: Some compare it to Mount Rushmore; the initial sculptor was the same person who later did Mount Rushmore, Gutzon Borglum, though the Stone Mountain carving was completed decades later by other artists.
Jacobsen: The three figures are Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, and Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson. So what are your thoughts on this feud?
Rosner: What’s the feud like? You’re not going to obliterate the whole side of a mountain where this sculpture—about 90 feet by 190 feet and recessed roughly 42 feet—has been etched with explosives and jackhammers, right? Do people want it to be removed? I guess so. It looks like there was a group celebrating Confederate Memorial Day there, and a fight broke out with counter-protesters. From the images, it doesn’t even look like there were that many people involved.
I don’t know what you can do about that monument because it’s gigantic. It’s literally blasted into the side of a mountain, carved from solid granite about 400 feet above the ground. It’s not like pulling down a fifteen-foot-tall bronze Confederate soldier in a park somewhere. And as long as it’s there, you’re going to have protesters and counter-protesters.
I don’t know what you do about it. If it were something on the side of a mountain depicting Hitler, you’d have to get rid of it. But is the Confederacy as bad as Hitler? I don’t know. Can you even compare the two? I don’t know what you do about it. Maybe you do blast it off the side of the mountain.
But that’s certainly not going to happen now, under the current leadership of the country, which is putting Confederate leaders back up at places like West Point and elsewhere.
Jacobsen: That’s some sad news. U.S. actress Diane Keaton, star of Annie Hall, has died at 79.
Rosner: Yeah, that is sad. That’s not very old under current life expectancy, especially for someone who presumably had good access to medical care. It’s scary for me—that’s only fourteen years older than I am. She seemed like a nice person and a good actress.
Jacobsen: So now we’re in the phase where the wave went through, and the tide is pulling back. The CDC has reversed hundreds of firings as the U.S. government shutdown enters its second week. About 1,300 employees were notified they’d be laid off, and hundreds of those notices were rescinded within hours.
Rosner: Trump doesn’t have the unlimited power to fire government employees. People will go to court over this, because a lot of federal employees can’t be fired except for cause—you can’t just arbitrarily fire them.
Trump is on record as repeatedly saying he’ll fire people and cut back funding that most hurts Democrats and blue states. That can be used against him in court, just as it was when he engaged in politically motivated prosecutions—such as having investigators review his political opponents’ mortgage and loan applications. If they find anything out of order, they’ll claim those people declared multiple properties as their primary residence—but only if they’re Democrats.
There’s one guy, Ken Paxton, down in Texas, who owns eleven properties and claims three of them as his primary residence, which is definitely mortgage fraud. He won’t be prosecuted because he’s a Republican in a Republican state.
So, all this stuff—Trump is going to do what he’s going to do. People will go to court and fight it, and we’ll see how everything turns out.
Vegas bookies have the lowest odds on the shutdown ending before November 1st. Government shutdowns only became a thing after a 1980 legal change. The longest in U.S. history lasted 35 days, under Trump in 2018–2019.
Bookies think it won’t last that long this time. But who knows? Part of the reason the government is shut down, some claim, is that a government in shutdown doesn’t have to release the Epstein files. A lot of this looks like desperate maneuvering by Republicans to avoid revealing what’s in those files, which suggests that what’s in there must be pretty bad.
Trump has consistently demonstrated that he can act without consequence, retaining the support of many of his followers. So if they’re afraid of what’s in the Epstein files, those files must be really damaging.
Jacobsen: Interesting. Activist Laura Loomer has criticized the Pentagon over plans to close a military facility in Idaho. For those who don’t know, she’s a far-right activist.
Rosner: Laura Loomer is generally not just an extremist but also deeply unhinged. She’s been hospitalized at least twice for mental health issues. My favourite dumb thing she said was when she claimed she was the victim of an attack on her Jeep—that someone had slashed her tires, possibly trying to kill her. It turned out she was driving on tires that were six and a half years old. Tires wear out.
But lately, some people that liberals would consider extremists—people like Marjorie Taylor Greene, the congresswoman from Georgia—have started criticizing Trump. Greene, who’s said plenty of lunatic things herself, has recently been making a surprising amount of sense in calling out some of Trump’s nonsense.
Which is great. If she’s a loose cannon, at least she’s firing in a direction that reins in Trump’s overreach. I’ll take that.
Jacobsen: Trump’s physician said in a memo that, quote, “Trump remains in exceptional health, exhibiting strong cardiovascular, pulmonary, neurological, and physical performance.” It added that Trump received preventive screenings and immunizations, including an annual flu shot and an updated COVID-19 booster, in preparation for upcoming international travel.
Rosner: Maybe, maybe. There’s a lot of skepticism about those statements. For instance, the memo called it a “semi-annual” physical. The president’s supposed to get an annual one. There’s never been a presidential semi-annual physical. So he’s obviously being checked out for something.
That leads people to speculate he may have had an MRI—one of the few procedures that can’t be done inside the White House. You have to be taken to a facility for that. But that’s speculation.
He doesn’t seem to be doing great. He’s 79 years old, and he’s obviously on several prescription drugs to manage whatever conditions he has. The administration isn’t telling the public anywhere near the whole truth about his health. For instance, after the latest physical, the White House said his “cardiac age” is 14 years younger than his chronological age, that he has the circulatory system of a 65-year-old. That’s nonsense.
Jacobsen: This next one is the following from last week. In contrast to Harvard’s conciliatory approach—issuing payouts instead of pushing back against federal threats of funding cuts—Massachusetts Institute of Technology President Sally Kornbluth said she “cannot support” a memo that the White House sent to nine elite universities.
The letter laid out detailed policies that universities should follow to receive preferential consideration for federal funding. Sally Kornbluth cited the fact that the letter from U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon would restrict MIT’s independence and freedom of expression. Any thoughts?
Rosner: Trump has been pressuring universities—especially big-name ones like Stanford, Columbia, and UCLA—by pulling hundreds of millions, even billions, in federal research funding. Some universities, to retain that money, have been implementing the changes demanded by Trump. They’re all nonsense. He claims they’re designed to eliminate DEI—diversity, equity, and inclusion programs—and to combat antisemitism. Trump doesn’t care about antisemitism. It’s just a way to punish universities, especially those with campuses where there have been pro-Palestinian protests.
Universities don’t really control who shows up to protest. They can increase security, but they can’t stop demonstrations entirely. I guess they could expel some protesters, but at this point, it’s too late—the protests have already happened.
So, universities have to choose: kiss Trump’s ass and make the superficial changes he demands, or hold the line—half the students at Harvard major in STEM—science, technology, engineering, and math. I majored in STEM before it was even called that—math and physics. You don’t get politics when you’re doing STEM.
I took other classes too—dance, art, women’s studies—and sure, there’s politics there, feminist politics primarily, but nobody was lecturing me about Marxism versus capitalism, or trying to turn me into a Marxist. It’s all bullshit. Campuses are liberal, sure, but that doesn’t mean everyone’s being turned into a communist. It’s just con-artist talk from Trump.
Universities now have to figure out how they’ll survive the next three years of Trump. Do they play along to keep their funding, or are they wealthy enough to ride it out for the next thirty-eight months and hope to recover when an actual adult is back in the White House?
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/11
In this conversation, Rick Rosner discusses the analytics and creative dilemmas behind Naked at Night, his YouTube show featuring artists, musicians, and occasional bikini-clad guests. Despite a surge in male viewers aged 30–40, audience retention remains low—most leave within a minute when the content proves more talk and art than titillation. Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen examine how thumbnails, algorithms, and audience expectations drive misleading clicks and force creators to choose between authenticity, eroticism, and politicization. The discussion reveals the friction between artistic intent and digital attention economics in an age of algorithmic seduction.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What did Adam’s data actually show in terms of audience behaviour—view time, demographics, engagement trends?
Rick Rosner: Adam helps us with our show and shares some analytics. Not for your show and mine—that one primarily exists in transcript form—but for Naked at Night, the one I do with Lance, JD, Mark, and sometimes you as a guest. For the last two episodes, Cassidy and Channing joined us—two women in bikinis being drawn by Lance during the broadcast.
We have gained more viewers, but not more subscribers. The new viewers only stay for about a minute. My theory is that our show—mostly talking, some drawing, and a bit of singing at the end from JD, and last week from Cassidy, who is a talented singer and guitarist—does not match what those new viewers expect. People see a thumbnail featuring a woman in a bikini and assume it is going to be sexually explicit. When they realize it is not, they leave.
Jacobsen: Have you considered whether thumbnail presentation or algorithmic categorization might be driving those misleading clicks?
Rosner: That is likely part of it. Our show has a lot going on, featuring women who are both interesting and articulate. Cassidy, for instance, described herself as an anarchist, which added a twist to the discussion. However, that doesn’t change the underlying problem of sexual expectations. The analytics show a 100% male audience—mostly men between 30 and 40, which is a demographic that often searches for erotic content.
Jacobsen: How does that shape your creative direction?
Rosner: Men in that age group still have strong sexual drives, while younger adults are reportedly having less sex than previous generations. Surveys from the General Social Survey and Pew show declining sexual frequency among people under 30, partly due to digital substitution and stress. Masturbation rates are mixed but stable. So, we’re attracting men who are looking for “bonerific” content—but that’s not what we’re offering.
Jacobsen: Are you tempted to lean into the erotic side for numbers, or would that dilute what makes the show unique?
Rosner: That’s the crossroads we’re at. We could make it more overtly sexual. I know how to stage spectacle—I worked on The Man Show, where we had women jumping on trampolines. I finance Naked at Night, so technically, we could hire topless models. But YouTube doesn’t allow explicit sexual content meant to arouse. Limited nudity is allowed only in educational, documentary, scientific, or artistic contexts, but even then, it’s often age-restricted and demonetized. So the “artistic disclaimer” approach doesn’t guarantee anything.
Jacobsen: Y Are you near the ad-revenue threshold yet?
Rosner: Not yet. To qualify for ad-revenue sharing, you need at least 1,000 subscribers and either 4,000 public watch hours in 12 months or 10 million Shorts views in 90 days. We’re nowhere close. Some fan-funding tools unlock earlier, but they don’t provide a scalable income.
Jacobsen: What about the show’s political component?
Rosner: Lance misses the political discussions. I’ve been trying to tone that down because the yelling wore us out, but he wants to express his right-wing views more directly. He points to someone like Doug TenNapel—the creator of Earthworm Jim—who pivoted into political commentary and found a loyal audience with his conservative show. Lance could do something like that: draw while talking politics.
Jacobsen: Does political controversy bring engagement or just polarization that drives away nuanced viewers?
Rosner: There’s an audience for it, but it bums me out. I don’t want to flood the world with right-wing nonsense without at least pushing back. I don’t want to deny Lance a livelihood—he’s a struggling artist—but I also don’t want him contributing to misinformation. So we’re at a few crossroads—caught between sexual marketing, political division, and creative authenticity.
Jacobsen: Have you considered reframing the show’s format around satire or meta-commentary, so the erotic and political themes become deliberate subjects rather than accidental bait?
Rosner: That’s not a bad idea. It could allow us to maintain humour and honesty while addressing the absurdity of the attention economy itself. It’s either that, or accept that our crossroads are paved with boobs and right-wing bullshit.
Rosner: Basically, we’re at a crossroads between boobs and Breitbart politics. That’s a good way to put it. It’s kind of interesting—we’ve seen a viewership increase of about 1,000% with Eladie and Vicky, two lovely young women.
Jacobsen: How much more on top of that increase do you need to become monetized? Another thousand percent?
Rosner: Probably, yeah. I think we could get monetized if we started getting… I don’t know. But Adam tells us it’s not just about the number of people who stop by; it’s the cumulative number of minutes they spend watching. I’m unsure about the total time required to reach monetization or the types of ad deals you receive.
Also, I’ve got another agenda—I’m trying to get a book deal. I know someone who got one, and in their acceptance letter, the publisher listed all their followers across different social media platforms. I have a decent number of followers on X, but it’s become a garbage heap, and nobody cares about it anymore. I started posting on Instagram, where I share my micromosaic work, and I’ve only got a few hundred followers. On YouTube, we have 5,400 subscribers, which is a decent number, but not a huge following. I don’t think that would help me get a book deal.
Plus, Carole tells me that if you’re selling fiction, publishers care less about your following. So I don’t know. That’s where we are.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/10
How does Rick Rosner interpret the moral decay surrounding Trump’s political maneuvers, Peter Thiel’s advice to Elon Musk, and the broader disillusionment of American farmers and citizens?
In this candid exchange, Rick Rosner reflects on Donald Trump’s ongoing legal troubles, alleged corruption, and the normalization of unethical behavior in American politics. He critiques Peter Thiel’s advice to Elon Musk against charitable giving as emblematic of billionaire arrogance and moral emptiness, contrasting it with Bill Gates’s philanthropic pragmatism. Rosner connects these issues to America’s agricultural collapse—where misguided trade policies and blind political loyalty devastate farmers—and to cultural dissonance that fractures the nation’s conscience. His analysis portrays a society seduced by power and spectacle, losing sight of empathy, reason, and accountability.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What’s been bothering you lately—or today?
Rick Rosner: Always wasting my life. Those are the two big ones. That’s it.
Jacobsen: What’s the latest with Trump?
Rosner: He’s been lobbying for the Nobel Peace Prize, which would be controversial if he got it. Most of what he’s doing now is trying to avoid, as many people say online, the consequences of his actions—and continuing to raise money through political and business ventures. He and his family have been involved in a number of business deals, including ones tied to cryptocurrency. Presidents and former presidents are not supposed to make financial deals connected to their time in office, especially ones that could create conflicts of interest. He’s widely seen as corrupt, and people have become so used to it that it’s barely treated as news anymore. It’s bad for the country that this kind of behavior has been normalized.
Jacobsen: Let’s pull up some news. What are your tasks today?
Rosner: Typical home repair tasks.
Jacobsen: Getting ready for Halloween? You put on a construction outfit, knock on the door, and Carole says, “All right, hottie, let’s do this,” and then gets you to do all the things she’s always wanted done around the house?
Rosner: No. I ordered some special drill bits from Temu, a Chinese e-commerce site where tools are inexpensive. I drilled through a metal support beam on our gate. The two sides move differently depending on how recently it’s rained. When it’s been dry, the latch doesn’t line up with the hole it’s supposed to go into.
So I drilled a new hole in the metal to create a proper housing for the latch. That worked out, and then I installed our Ring doorbell. Carol handled all the software—the app download and setup on her iPhone. I did the wiring and mounting. I actually enjoy that kind of work. Jews are stereotypically not known for being handy, but I’m reasonably handy.
Jacobsen: News time: Letitia James, the New York Attorney General who filed a civil fraud lawsuit against Donald Trump, is still in office and has not been indicted for mortgage fraud. Any thoughts?
So, Letitia James is the one who brought the civil fraud case against Trump, which resulted in a $355 million penalty—later reduced to about $175 million pending appeal—but not a criminal conviction.
Rosner: He wasn’t convicted of any counts, and of course, he became president before that civil case concluded. Now, he’s trying to retaliate against her with his own legal actions.
This new claim was reportedly turned down by several state prosecutors—people even appointed or supported by Trump—because they found no legal basis for it. Some prosecutors resigned rather than pursue it. Eventually, Trump installed one of his personal lawyers, a woman with no prior experience prosecuting a case, in a position where she could file charges against Letitia James. She couldn’t get any other prosecutors to sign off on it. Normally, indictment papers are signed by multiple attorneys, but in this case, only she did.
That’s always a bad sign when prosecutors in an office resign rather than take part in a case. A grand jury did reportedly return an indictment—two counts, I think. But the thing about grand juries is that they don’t decide guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The standard is a preponderance of the evidence—basically, whether there’s a reasonable chance the accused might be guilty. It doesn’t need to be unanimous; just a majority is enough. The old saying goes, “A grand jury would indict a ham sandwich.”
Grand juries can be presented with selective evidence. In this instance, the supposed case is based on mortgage documents. The alleged “fraud” Trump keeps accusing his opponents of involves whether someone improperly claimed more than one property as a primary residence. You can only legally designate one property as your principal home because it affects mortgage rates—typically by about half a percentage point—and sometimes minor property tax exemptions. For example, designating our home as our primary residence gets us about seventy dollars off our property taxes.
Trump’s argument is that his political enemies falsely claimed multiple homes as their primary residence. But mortgage paperwork is notoriously dense—dozens of documents, hundreds of checkboxes, and frequent clerical mistakes. If someone combs through all that, they might find a missed box or inconsistent wording. That’s not evidence of intent to defraud.
In Letitia James’s case, the evidence reportedly shows she clearly marked in a note that one of the properties was not her primary residence. Most legal experts expect the case to go nowhere, both because it appears politically motivated and because it lacks substance.
That note Letitia James wrote—clarifying that the property wasn’t her primary residence—was probably never shown to the grand jury. But she added it precisely to make sure everything was clear in case the document was confusing or she made a mistake. It’s easy to make an error when filling out legal forms, especially ones that are poorly worded.
To illustrate, I just voted early in California’s November special election, which could flip a few congressional districts from Republican to Democratic. That’s the opposite of what Trump tried to pressure Texas to do. When I filled out my ballot envelope, I accidentally signed it in the wrong place—the spot where a witness is supposed to sign if the voter can’t physically sign their own name. I had to write a note on the envelope saying, “Oops, I signed this in the wrong place.”
People make mistakes on documents all the time. But in Letitia James’s case, she actually wrote a note clarifying that the property wasn’t her primary residence. It’s hard to imagine how anyone could prosecute her for something she explicitly corrected in writing. Everyone who isn’t a partisan extremist agrees this case is going nowhere.
Ideally, the judge should impose sanctions on the prosecution for pursuing a frivolous case.
As for hypocrisy, look at Ken Paxton, the Attorney General of Texas—one of the most openly corrupt politicians in the country. He’s claimed three different homes as his primary residence, yet he’s not being prosecuted because it’s Texas, and he’s a Republican.
Jacobsen: So Peter Thiel, in a talk where he discussed the idea of the Antichrist, said he told Elon Musk not to give his wealth to charity. He advised Musk to quit the Giving Pledge, under which billionaires commit to donating most of their wealth to charitable causes. This comes from transcripts and audio recordings of Thiel’s lectures that Reuters obtained. Thiel told Musk that if he didn’t, his wealth would end up going to “left-wing nonprofits chosen by Bill Gates.” What are your thoughts on that? This is Reuters.
Rosner: My thoughts are that the past five years—especially since COVID—have revealed just how much wealth and power billionaire tech figures have accumulated. That period has also shown that many of these so-called visionaries are what one essayist, King Daddy, aptly called “smart stupids.” They’re intelligent or lucky enough to make billions but are naïve, arrogant, or morally blind in other areas of life.
Many of them act like entitled adolescents with god complexes. Peter Thiel is a prime example—a highly influential, ultrarich tech magnate with staunch conservative leanings. He helped elevate J.D. Vance to national prominence and supports a worldview steeped in elitism and contempt for egalitarian values. This recent revelation about him advising Musk not to donate wealth to charity only reinforces that characterization.
Thiel has taken on a kind of twisted religiosity—Christianity drained of compassion and replaced with self-justified greed. Musk, meanwhile, reportedly exposed this exchange with Thiel to make him look bad, which is ironic, since Musk himself often behaves in similarly arrogant and destructive ways.
These people are as fallible and self-serving as anyone else—perhaps more so when you hand them ten billion dollars and no accountability.
By contrast, Bill Gates—while certainly rigid, socially awkward, and probably on the autism spectrum—has directed the majority of his wealth through philanthropic channels, notably the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. He’s committed vast sums to eradicating malaria, improving global health, and developing sustainable agricultural programs. Gates has tried to make his money do measurable good in the world.
So when someone like Thiel attacks Gates for giving away his fortune, it exposes a deep hypocrisy. Thiel’s stance contradicts the very Christian ethics he claims to value. Gates may be imperfect, but in moral and humanitarian terms, he’s miles ahead of Thiel.
Jacobsen: The USDA has halted the release of grain export sales data based on a crop report. This disruption prevents confirmation of potential soybean sales to China. Traders and farmers are now uncertain about U.S. corn and soy output, so they’re essentially flying blind in terms of market trading.
Rosner: I looked up the data, and while you’re trying to get away from Trump topics, this connects directly to his policies. Over the past five years, 30 to 50 percent of U.S. soybean sales have gone to China. Last year, American farmers sold about $18 billion worth of soybeans there. This year? Practically zero.
If you grew soybeans this past year, you’re in trouble. A third of your market has vanished because China, due to trade tensions and tariffs, isn’t buying from the U.S. The price of soybeans has dropped roughly 25 percent, and most farmers don’t even have that much profit margin to lose. So all the work they did this season is likely to result in a net loss.
This same thing happened under Trump’s first term—he imposed poorly planned tariffs that hurt farmers, then had to bail them out with billions in subsidies. Even so, American farmers now have a suicide rate three times higher than the national average. They’re supposed to be the heart and soul of America, and yet Trump’s policies—past and present—keep devastating them economically.
Jacobsen: What does that do to the heart and soul of America?
Rosner: It creates massive cognitive dissonance. Farmers believe Trump fights for the working class and that Biden is the one destroying America, yet they’re watching Trump destroy their livelihoods. In economics, there’s a principle called the “sunk cost fallacy.” It means you have to learn to walk away from failed investments rather than keep throwing good money—or loyalty—after bad. But psychologically, that’s incredibly hard.
People who have invested their identities and pride into Trump can’t admit they’ve been deceived. They keep holding out hope that he’ll somehow make things right, even as their finances collapse. Twitter often mocks this dynamic with a meme: a ribbon labeled “Got Fooled Again Prize.” Every time Trump betrays his base, that meme resurfaces.
So, what happens to the heart of America? It fractures. People grow frustrated, fearful, and disillusioned, but they can’t let go because doing so would mean admitting their hero ruined them.
Jacobsen: The Nobel Peace Prize should be announced soon.
Rosner: Trump’s name has been floated because of his role in the temporary ceasefire between Israel and Gaza. People—especially liberals like me—worry that the Nobel Committee might give it to him as an appeasement gesture, thinking it might encourage him to act more responsibly.
Most Nobel Prizes are awarded in Sweden, but the Peace Prize is an exception—it’s given by a separate committee in Norway, as per Alfred Nobel’s will. It’s one of the later-established prizes, distinct in how it’s managed.
The fear is that, given past precedents, the committee might award it based more on symbolism than substance. The classic example is Barack Obama’s Peace Prize in 2009—awarded before he’d even accomplished much in office. It was seen as a hopeful gesture, a prize for “not being George W. Bush.”
That kind of decision makes people nervous because it blurs the line between aspiration and achievement.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/09
Trump asks conservative allies for names of Antifa activists and backers. What are your thoughts on this request?
In this conversation, Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner dissect several pressing issues: former President Donald Trump’s request for conservative allies to expose Antifa supporters, the tragic California Palisades fire linked to an arsonist, and the controversy surrounding Jimmy Kimmel’s remarks about Charlie Kirk. Rosner underscores that Antifa is not an organized group but rather a political stance against autocracy, making Trump’s request absurd. The discussion then shifts to the troubling trend of disturbed young men committing violent acts, before exploring Kimmel’s defence of his comments and the solidarity among late-night hosts like Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Trump asks conservative allies for names of Antifa activists and also Antifa backers. What are your thoughts on this request? U.S. President Donald Trump on Wednesday promised to take, quote, “very threatening” steps against Antifa. He asked right-wing media allies to help identify backers of the movement.
Rick Rosner: Identify what of the movement?
Jacobsen: Backers. Not just the people involved, but also those who would support it.
Rosner: How would right-wing media even know this? Antifa is not an organized movement. It is an adjective.
Jacobsen: And he has asked the federal government to treat it as a terrorist organization.
Rosner: It is not an organization, as we have discussed before. It is a political stance—it is being against Trump and autocracy. You could say that includes many people who are against Trump, such as those who protest, but it still does not constitute an organized movement. It is more nonsense from the bullshitter-in-chief. Rotten tomatoes. Everything Trump does is intended to distract from his other actions.
Jacobsen: We have a news item apart from Trump here. This was pointed out to me by another journalist. I wasn’t aware of it until about two hours ago. A man was arrested in Florida on charges of intentionally igniting what would become California’s devastating fire.
Rosner: This deranged man set a fire.
Jacobsen: Are you noticing a pattern on a larger point—the pattern of deranged adult men?
Rosner: Yes, it’s not solely white men, but it’s mostly men, or at least people born male, in the case of one or two trans individuals.
Jacobsen: And they’re generally in the first half of life.
Rosner: You mean under 50?
Jacobsen: Under 40 in America.
Rosner: Okay. They’re generally white, but the U.S. is still a majority white country. You’d have to do a more sophisticated statistical analysis to see if there’s racial overrepresentation. But probably so. It’s primarily likely white men, given that the U.S. is a majority white country. This guy set a fire on January 1st, called in the fire, and then acted suspiciously around it, offering to help put it out. They put it out, noted the suspicious behaviour, but six days later, it flared up again and became the Palisades fire, also known as the Malibu fire.
Jacobsen: Is he guilty of murder now?
Rosner: Twelve people died in that fire, so I assume they will charge him with murder. Among the evidence against him are an AI graphic he generated and a series of images showing the world on the left burning and the world on the right not burning. It was also noted that he was an Uber driver and lived close to where the fire started. I’m sure we’ll hear much more as he goes on trial. Does he deserve to be prosecuted for murder? I don’t know. It’s tricky. He set a fire, they put it out, but it smouldered for six days and erupted again.
It was that second eruption that killed twelve people. It seems at least like manslaughter. I would assume—well, I don’tknow. The fire also burned thousands of homes and caused billions of dollars in damage. I don’t know if they’ll offer him a plea deal. I was thinking this morning about how many years in prison he deserves, both as punishment and as a deterrent for others, though deterrence rarely works for disturbed people. I think if they offered a plea deal, it should be no less than twenty years and possibly as much as life in prison. He’s a sad individual, but that doesn’t excuse him.
The insanity defence hasn’t excused crimes of this magnitude for decades. That seems like something from a 1960s lawyer show plot.
Jacobsen: Next item. This is back to home base for you. Jimmy Kimmel has described the critics’ interpretation of his Charlie Kirk remarks as “maliciously mischaracterized.” Kimmel stated, “I didn’t think there was a big problem. I just saw it as a distortion on the part of some of the right-wing media networks, and I aimed to correct it.”
Rosner: I’ve thought about this quite a bit. His comment was something like: after the murder, MAGA and MAGA pundits spent the weekend— I think the murder happened on a Thursday or Friday—denying that the killer was part of MAGA. And that is accurate, because that’s what the right-wing did.
They spent the weekend denying it. There was some indication that the killer might have been MAGA, and in those early days, MAGA voices vehemently denied it. By denying it, though, you imply that he was MAGA. You don’t issue denials unless there’s an implication. And at that point, there were a lot of indicators he was MAGA. We haven’t heard much in the last couple of weeks. There’s been no new information. But soon after, it looked like he had a trans girlfriend and was angry at Charlie Kirk’s transphobic stance.
Kimmel, I think—and I can’t speak for him—believes there was nothing wrong with what he said. He thinks he accurately described the situation: MAGA was denying that the murderer was MAGA. He would have provided any further clarification in his Wednesday show, given that he made the initial comment on Monday. There was no uproar by Tuesday’s show, since most people heard it and thought it was fine. But late Tuesday into Wednesday, the New York Times ran a story on it.
A dozen right-wing influencer rabble-rousers pushed the idea that Kimmel had gone on TV and said the killer was MAGA, which he hadn’t. He implied it at a time when there was evidence suggesting the guy was. So the rabble-rousers got outraged, ginned up late Tuesday and into Wednesday. By Wednesday afternoon, just a couple of hours before the show was due to tape, Sinclair and Nextstar—two major affiliate groups—announced they wouldn’t air Kimmel. They pulled him from the air, forcing ABC to stop the taping of the Wednesday show. Kimmel was annoyed, based on what I’ve read and what you just mentioned, because MAGA figures kept insisting he had accused the killer of being MAGA, when the point of his sentence was about MAGA pundits’ behaviour, not the killer’s affiliations. They were willfully leaning on implication.
Kimmel was frustrated because there had been no uproar at first, and then 24 hours later, right-wing rabble-rousers created one. Most people didn’t know what he had actually said, only what the pundits told them. So, it’s clear why Kimmel would be annoyed by the nonsense, especially after there was no initial backlash. Does that make sense? I find it a reasonable stance, but ABC worried about what he was going to say next. I guess they read his prepared remarks for Wednesday’s show and thought he might double down: “I didn’t say the guy was MAGA, I said MAGA spent the weekend denying it.” He might have clarified that, but probably not too much—it’s hard to get humour out of it, and the whole thing gets tangled. ABC decided the comments weren’t apologetic, just explanatory. And ABC, pushed by its affiliates, backed off. Sinclair in particular is notorious for misrepresenting the news, and they’re heavily MAGA. So, there you go. Kimmel didn’t feel an apology was needed. He thought clarification was fine, but ABC wanted contrition. And I think Kimmel is a stickler for accuracy.
One thing that’s become clear from the Kimmel and Colbert situation is that the late-night hosts are genuinely friends. Many of them even share the same agent, James “Babydoll” Dixon—an eccentric and beloved character in the industry. Beyond the business ties, their camaraderie speaks to their decency as people.
There was a time when late-night television was brutally divided between Leno and Letterman. Eventually, things calmed down, but the rivalry was intense for years. Both Leno and Letterman are good people, but now you’ve got this friend group among the late-night hosts—Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, Jimmy Kimmel, and Jimmy Fallon. They all know and like each other. Some even go on fishing trips together. I believe that says something about their decency.
Jon Stewart, for example, has done extraordinary work for veterans and for people who became ill from exposure to the wreckage of the Twin Towers after 9/11. He’s been their advocate for decades. That makes him almost a secular saint—he started as a stand-up comedian and became a fierce, knowledgeable advocate for people who were being mistreated.
Kimmel, for his part, brought the San Gennaro Festival from New York to Los Angeles. The San Gennaro Festival is an annual street fair in Little Italy in Manhattan, with food, carnival games, entertainment, parades, and Catholic processions. It raises a lot of money for the church. Kimmel thought, “Why not bring this to the West Coast?” So he established the festival in L.A. as both a charitable enterprise and a community celebration.
To me, that shows his goodness—not only as a Christian but as a person. He’s also used his platform to support children’s hospitals and health coverage for kids and families. These are good people, and yet the political right attacks them relentlessly, even though their work reflects generosity and integrity.
These good Christians should be welcomed, because MAGA is a Christian movement. MAGAs are Christians, and that they would try to cancel these people—just because they make fun of Trump, which is their job—is bullshit.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/09
How does Rick Rosner balance a 34-year workout streak with sharp critiques of Trump, media accountability, and global politics?
In this candid exchange, Scott Douglas Jacobsen asks Rick Rosner about his extraordinary 12,680-day workout streak—over 34 years without missing a day. Rosner outlines his routine of push and pull days, daily leg work, and adaptations due to a semi-permanent rotator cuff injury. The conversation shifts to current affairs, where Rosner criticizes Trump’s chaotic style, dishonesty, and lack of accountability in the media. He highlights Trump’s controversial Nobel Peace Prize ambitions amid the Israel-Hamas ceasefire deal and domestic militarization. Rosner draws contrasts with Obama’s early prize and reflects on the strangeness of today’s political climate.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Here’s a quick question. How many days have you worked out consecutively?
Rick Rosner: Around 12,680.
Jacobsen: That’s incredible. What is your most frequent type of workout? A particular muscle group or something?
Rosner: I have push days and pull days, but I work my legs every day. Not that it has made them any good, but I can put both hands around my lower leg, right above my knee. My leg is probably only about 16 inches in diameter. Higher up, I can still touch both hands together around my leg. That’s not a large leg. I do machine squats and mostly leg presses. Sometimes I’ll do leg extensions if someone is hogging the leg press machine. On chest days, I use a different machine at each gym I go to. For a while, I was doing bench presses with free weights, but I have a sore rotator cuff. Still.
Jacobsen: Still?
Rosner: Yes, I think it’s semi-permanent. Before I go back to free weights, I’d like to get a little stronger—if ever.
Jacobsen: Any complaints for today? Any immediate complaints about the news?
Rosner: A lot of people on X say Trump seems chaotic, dishonest, and nonsensical. He says whatever he wants, and nobody holds him accountable. The media were always after Biden, but Trump seems worse and still nobody is calling him on it. CNN’s Jake Tapper even conducted an interview with Trump via text message, which drew criticism because you can’t verify who typed the responses.
Trump says Israel and Hamas have reached the first phase of a peace agreement—and today multiple outlets reported that Israel and Hamas signed a ceasefire and hostage deal as part of that first phase, pending implementation steps. We’ll have to see how it plays out. There are indications negotiations have advanced. And, of course, Trump wants the Nobel Peace Prize. Meanwhile, he has ordered National Guard deployments for domestic enforcement in some states and has threatened to use the Insurrection Act—moves now being challenged in court—so “peaceful” isn’t the word many would use.
Jacobsen: They gave Obama one before he had even done anything.
Rosner: That’s right, and that was controversial at the time. They could conceivably give him one because they think it might moderate him. I doubt it, but who knows.
Jacobsen: We live in strange times.
Rosner: Yes.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/08
How should courts balance free speech claims against bans on harmful conversion therapy, and how can policymakers meet AI-driven power demand without undermining climate progress?
Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy for minors faces a U.S. Supreme Court challenge framed as free-speech, raising tensions between professional standards and religious pseudoscience. Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner argue evidence, ethics, and patient protection should prevail over rights claims. They compare outlawing a dangerous, ineffective “therapy” to banning lessons in flying. In parallel, U.S. power demand is projected to hit new records as AI, cryptocurrency, and electrification expand, potentially eroding emissions gains unless clean generation, storage, and efficiency scale quickly. The pair endorse science-based policy, guardrails on harmful practices, and pragmatic energy planning to align liberty with wellbeing.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: U.S. Supreme Court skeptical toward Colorado LGBT conversion therapy.
Rick Rosner: So, somebody must have taken Colorado to court. Like California, it’s illegal to run “pray away the gay” therapy. They’ve done studies, and it doesn’t work. You can’t make somebody not gay with treatment.
A lot of that so-called therapy happens in a religious context. Colorado must have passed a law similar to California’s, banning it because it doesn’t work, it makes people suffer, and it’s cruel and homophobic. So, you shouldn’t be allowed to do it.
However, some group of people must have challenged the law, and it has reached the Supreme Court, according to what you just said. And now the Court is saying, “Well, maybe it does work” or “Maybe people have the right to try it,” even though all the evidence shows it’s nonsense. That is not comforting.
What did the Supreme Court say? Obviously, no final ruling yet, because you would have mentioned it.
Jacobsen: The Supreme Court on Tuesday appeared ready to side with a challenge—on free speech grounds—to a Colorado law banning psychotherapists from conducting conversion therapy. The law prohibits attempts to change a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity.
The conservative justices posed questions during arguments, showing sympathy toward Christian counsellor Kaylee Chiles, who challenged the law under First Amendment protections. And the Court has a 6–3 conservative majority.
Rosner: That sounds terrible. If I were a therapist and I had a technique that I claimed could teach people to fly, and after therapy, nobody could fly—and worse, many people got hurt trying—it would be reasonable to pass legislation banning “learn-to-fly therapy.” It’s dangerous, and it doesn’t work.
For me to then claim “freedom of speech” to defend it? That doesn’t seem like an argument that should be entertained.
Because if there’s a ton of it—well, is it free speech to force bullshit on people who are defenceless against the bullshit? I don’t know. It sounds like a garbage angle on this stuff. And the people who run those conversion therapies—they’re assholes.
Some of them may be sincere, good-hearted Christians, but a lot of them are cruel, cynical shysters. Comments? You can’t really think these people are earnest, just trying to help.
Jacobsen: Whatever the empirical evidence states, I’ve tended to side with it throughout my professional life. I interviewed a man who went through conversion therapy years ago. That interview was for Atheist Republic, the largest online atheist platform on Facebook.
My understanding of the experience is that was, and is, cruel, unscientific, and baseless. The American Psychiatric Association has issued statements—most recently in the past year—reaffirming that view. So, any move to bypass the professional consensus in psychology, psychiatry, or psychotherapy, and to legislate based on Christian theology into law, is wrong.
Rosner: Okay, so we’re in concordance there. All right, one more thing, and then I’ve got to go.
Jacobsen: U.S. power use is projected to reach record highs in 2025 and 2026, due to cryptocurrency, AI, and electrification.
Rosner: So, we’re going to use more power in the U.S. than ever before because we’re burning so much juice on AI calculations. The carbon footprint per capita in America had been going down about 1% a year—until AI. Now it looks like AI is pushing it back up.
We had some hope of mitigating climate change because the global population was projected to peak in the 2050s, rather than 2100. Maximum humanity—about 9.5 billion instead of 11 billion, which is a 15% discount on the number of people needing juice.
And now AI is going to eat up that extra juice, putting us back where we were. Though maybe not as bad—AI won’t mostly burn gasoline. It’ll use solar, which is far cleaner than fossil fuels. Nuclear is also way cleaner.
But really, what should happen is that these AI motherfuckers—some of whom are out of control—need to be reined in. Because energy use is actually one of the least of our worries when it comes to being destroyed by AI.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/07
How do issues of AI deepfakes, personal comparisons, and family storytelling intersect in Rick Rosner’s reflections on memory, identity, and cultural ethics?
In this dialogue, Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner explore a wide range of topics, from Robin Williams’s daughter objecting to AI-generated clips of her late father, to Rosner’s discomfort at being compared to mathematician Grigori Perelman. The conversation touches on ethics, memory, self-presentation, and cultural sensitivity in an age of artificial media. Rosner expands into personal reflections, weaving in anecdotes about his family life in Albuquerque and speculative narratives about Los Angeles in the 1970s. The exchange highlights the tensions between authenticity and fabrication, personal identity and public image, while underscoring the importance of storytelling in shaping perception.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: You sent you a couple of articles.
Rick Rosner: One was about Robin Williams’s daughter asking people to stop sending her AI clips of her dad. She has been receiving many of them.
Jacobsen: That is awful. When AI audio first took off, someone even made a whole “George Carlin” album from his past material, and his daughter Kelly was horrified.
Rosner: I think people believe they are doing her a favor—honoring his memory with AI versions. But it ties into SAP, the single-avatar policy controlled by the family. Nobody wants fabricated material of people who have passed away.
Jacobsen: You were only genuinely offended one time in our entire writing and collaborative career.
Rosner: Want me to tell the story?
Jacobsen: It was fairly recent, maybe within the last year or few. The next day, you seemed calmer, and my inference was that you had talked it over with Carole. But at the time you actually said, “I’m genuinely offended.”
What happened was that I said, “Look at this guy—he looks like you.” The guy was Grigori Perelman. You were not amused. He’s a very hairy man, of Eastern European Jewish background, living in Russia, while you’re living in the American Southwest. I should have held my tongue, because right after I said it, I realized I’d never seen you react like that before. I’d seen clips of you angry—like the time with JD and Lance when a chair got thrown—but that was a different context. This was more a strict defense against an unflattering comparison.
Rosner: I think it was mostly the hair. Perelman has, let’s just say, unfortunate hair. Men who look like me usually lose theirs, while guys like Carlos Santana, who I also resemble, hide it under a bandana for decades because their hair situation isn’t great either. Perelman, by contrast, doesn’t seem to care at all about presentation. He looks perpetually disheveled.
Carole teased me recently. JD has a thing for women her age—he thinks she’s hot. I agree she is, but I joked that I wish she wore less comfortable pants. She’s been living in baggy sweats for a few years now. I said I’d prefer she wear something tighter, since she could, but she likes to be comfortable. When I told her this, she shot back, “Me? Look at you!” And she was right—I wear the same gym pants and boots every day with interchangeable T-shirts. The difference is, I go to the gym multiple times a day, so even if I dress like hell, my physique is in shape.
Perelman, though, seems like a man in a permanent mathematical haze. I doubt he exercises.
Jacobsen: After all, he solved the Poincaré conjecture, was awarded the Fields Medal and the million-dollar Clay Millennium Prize, and turned them both down. He retired from mathematics and, according to reports, still lives with his mother in St. Petersburg, avoiding publicity.
Rosner: So, unlike me—or Carlos Santana—he’s not teaching at a U.S. university, not publishing, not doing outreach. He just lives quietly.
It reminds me of Slow Horses, the spy series with Gary Oldman, where brilliant but eccentric people end up tucked away out of sight.
Slow Horses is about a branch of MI5, the British equivalent of the FBI, called Slough House. MI5 proper works out of a big, gleaming headquarters in London, but if you screw up, you get exiled to Slough House, where all the misfits end up. The premise is that these “losers” aren’t truly incompetent—they’re unlucky, abrasive, or bad at teamwork—but by the end of each season, they stumble into unlikely victories.
The leader of this band is Jackson Lamb, played by Gary Oldman. He’s brilliant but utterly disheveled—he drinks constantly, chain smokes, rarely bathes, and looks like he hasn’t changed clothes in years. He’s greasy, cynical, and doesn’t care about appearances.
That’s what reminded me of Grigori Perelman. He has that same rough, unkempt look, as if he doesn’t give a damn. It’s as though he gave up on caring about romance or social approval decades ago—if he ever cared at all. That was why I was offended by the comparison. I can be a slob in some ways, but in others I keep myself kempt.
Anyway, what should we do now? I could tell a story. I had planned a “story time” segment on the show last night, but I forgot the manuscript. In its place, I’ll tell a story from my own life, which I’ve always thought had the makings of something entertaining—based on my family in the 1970s.
Growing up, I had two families. My Boulder family was my mom and stepdad. My Albuquerque family was my dad and stepmom, where I spent one month a year for visitation. That household was more fun, but by the late ’70s, it was unraveling. Albuquerque itself didn’t help—an edgy town, prone to stirring people into bad behavior. My stepmom was having an affair, the kids were running wild, and things were generally unstable.
I thought about this recently while walking with Carol in Beverly Hills after a movie screening. I was struck by how much more exciting Los Angeles feels—the things that can happen to you there are simply better than the things that can happen to you in Albuquerque.
That gave me a “what if” idea: what if, in 1976, my dad—a CPA—had discovered his wife’s affair and decided to pack up the family and move to Los Angeles to start over?
My dad’s brother was a Beverly Hills neurologist. He and his wife were friends with Jack Warner, the movie mogul who ran Warner Brothers. So I imagine: what if, in desperation, my dad had asked his brother to pull some strings? The uncle goes to Jack Warner, and suddenly my dad lands a job as a CPA for Warner Brothers Studios. They even help set him up with a condo.
Now picture this: our whole unruly family of Albuquerque rubes transplanted into Los Angeles in 1976. Meanwhile, back in Boulder, I was going stir-crazy. I had started lifting weights, but my reputation was fixed as a nerdy weirdo. The idea of ever getting close to a girl in Boulder seemed impossible. So in the story, when my Albuquerque family makes the jump to LA, I decide to join them. Nobody in that household is thrilled, but they grudgingly let me in. I transfer to Beverly Hills High, determined to reinvent myself—which I absolutely do.
The setup practically writes itself. In Albuquerque, your opportunities for mischief are limited by Albuquerque. In Los Angeles, trouble has range. You can go further, fall harder, and dream bigger.
So my character arrives in LA determined to look like a badass. He wears Frye boots to gain some height, tight white jeans to show off his weightlifter’s thighs, and a secondhand letterman’s jacket he picked up at a thrift shop to signal he’s on the football team. He’s ready to walk into Beverly Hills High like he owns it.
Then there’s this moment from real life. The two families—my uncle and his wife, who was an aspiring actress, plus my dad, stepmom, siblings, and me—go out to lunch at the Hamburger Hamlet on Sunset. I sit next to my uncle’s wife. And she starts playing footsie with me. Running her foot up and down my leg under the table. Even as a kid, I knew exactly what that meant: she wanted to fool around.
It made no sense. Her husband, my uncle, was right there. I was just a teenager. And the strangest part? She was wearing orthodontic headgear. Full-on contraption—bars coming out of her mouth, wrapping around her head, the kind of thing you’d only see when someone’s bite had to be completely reconstructed after a dental disaster. So here she was: attractive, yes, but with this surreal medical hardware strapped to her face, sending me signals in front of the family.
I froze. What could I do? I wasn’t going to “get with” my own uncle’s wife at a family lunch. Later, I found out she had a habit of pulling stunts like that.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/05
How do AI avatars, political nationalism, and international conflicts shape the future of governance and society?
Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner explore a spectrum of future-shaping issues, from AI-driven cultural policies to the politics of international crises. Rosner imagines “Single Avatar Policies” (SAPs) regulating digital replicas of dead celebrities, tightly controlled to prevent brand dilution and protect jobs. Jacobsen turns the conversation toward global flashpoints: Russia’s drone war against Ukraine and NATO’s cautious responses, Sanae Takaichi’s rise in Japan as its first potential female prime minister, and North Korea’s military buildup. Domestically, they discuss U.S. shutdown politics, Trump’s controversial tactics, civil rights violations, and the economics of California’s refineries. Together, the dialogue maps the areas where technology, politics, and society intersect.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What do you want to focus on tonight?
Rick Rosner: I was talking about a couple of things in the future—lava lamps and AI-generated semi-stories that drift along. You could probably “move into” a lava lamp—like moving into the Sims—and interact with it. This relates to people entering virtual worlds inspired by movies or video games. Another idea is SAPs, which stands for a “Single Avatar Policy” for departed celebrities.
Under this imagined policy, once a celebrity has died, there would be only one authorized digital version of them. Decisions about which projects the avatar appears in would be controlled by the heirs (and potentially by prior instructions from the celebrity). The policy would exist to prevent cheap, unlicensed copies from damaging the brand and from displacing too many jobs for living actors. Those sanctioned avatars would be referred to as SAPs.
Ten to fifteen years from now, you might see, say, a Redford SAP; you’d certainly see Marilyn Monroe and Elvis SAPs—tightly regulated to protect the brand and to avoid an avalanche of digital stand-ins pushing out the living.
Jacobsen: International news or American?
Rosner: International.
Jacobsen: Russia has launched large-scale drone and missile attacks across Ukraine, including the Lviv region near Poland; in response, Poland scrambled jets to secure its airspace. This pattern—Russian strikes on Ukraine prompting neighbouring NATO states to raise air defences—does not, by itself, “trigger Article 5.” Article 5 (NATO’s collective-defence clause) applies to an armed attack on a NATO member’s territory and is a political decision, not an automatic tripwire. It has been invoked only once (after 9/11).
Rosner: Airspace alerts or spillover incidents typically lead to consultations under Article 4 first. NATO members have begun actively engaging intruding drones in their own airspace: Poland reported shooting down suspected Russian drones after violations in September 2025—marking the first such shoot-downs by a NATO state during this war.
Rosner: A man on Pod TV, Sasha, who served in the Soviet army before its collapse, is from Ukraine. He believes Russia is running out of resources and that Ukraine is in a good position to retake territory.
He has been optimistic before, but at the very least, the war is still at a stalemate. Russia is not making significant gains. We’re about a month—six weeks—from winter, when it will be harder to shift the skirmish line as the weather worsens.
Jacobsen: Sanae Takaichi is right-wing, but she’s set to become Japan’s first woman prime minister. Any thoughts?
Rosner: No real comment, because I’m uninformed about her. You’re saying she’s conservative—or beyond conservative, actually right-wing?
Jacobsen: Yes.
Rosner: What does “right wing” consist of in Japan?
Jacobsen: She has expansionist fiscal plans. It’s a nationalist stance. So she’s a nationalist. Okay, so she’s right-wing, not just conservative.
Rosner: What does nationalism mean in Japan? Are there people she wants to kick out? Is she isolationist? I’m not qualified to comment further on that. Nationalists are assholes.
Jacobsen: North Korea’s Kim Jong-un in Pyongyang is allocating additional strategic resources in response to the buildup of U.S. military assets and forces in the South. He’s about to develop additional military measures.
Rosner: We should probably move away from international, because I’m not well-informed. You’re from Canada. You get more international news than we do.
Jacobsen: NFL star Mark Sanchez has been charged with battery after being stabbed. Any thoughts?
Rosner: None, because I don’t like responding to stories about individual idiots. That’s not really news. So no comment.
Jacobsen: What’s your opinion on the crackdown in Washington on crime by Trump?
Rosner: This is old news—dated from last month. It was ridiculous, and now it’s old. Let’s move to the next thing.
Jacobsen: Reuters put this one down as October 4. A retrospective.
Rosner: It was completely unnecessary. The troops stationed there were left to perform tasks such as picking up litter. The bid to end the shutdown failed in the Senate.
Jacobsen: Trump froze aid to Chicago and billions of dollars in funding to blue states. The restoration of government funding failed by a decent margin—54 to 44. That’s not razor-thin, but it’s close either.
Rosner: So it’s going to go on for a while. The House doesn’t even come back into session until October 13. This will continue for a while. The Democrats feel like they have something to gain by standing up to the Republicans, because the budget gives them leverage to push back against some of the cuts to health care for tens of millions of Americans.
The big bill that was passed was called either “beautiful” or “ugly,” depending on which side you’re on. Democrats are in no hurry to get the government running again. And Republicans—along with Trump in particular—in their stupidity, are ignoring the fact that polls show the Democrats are pretty much right. About 54 percent of people polled blame the Republicans, while 30 percent blame the Democrats. That gives Democrats a net advantage. But Trump thinks otherwise, and he’s also using the shutdown as an excuse to dismantle more of the government. He’s happy to do that.
So it’ll go on for a while. It might even become the longest shutdown in history. The previous longest was under Trump in 2018–2019, which lasted 35 days. I don’t see any compelling reasons why this one won’t last at least three weeks, probably longer. It may not break the record, but the second-longest shutdown was 21 days, and I’d put money on this one surpassing that, to at least become the second-longest.
Jacobsen: Centrist Republicans, like U.S. Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina, have already said this strategy is creating a bad-faith environment. His words were a critique of the shutdown strategy, framing it as reckless even within their own party.
Border Patrol raids in Chicago targeted citizens and families. They raided an entire apartment building and detained about 500 people, regardless of whether they were citizens or not. They didn’t have warrants—it was a massive violation of civil rights law.
Rosner: But who’s going to prosecute them? Who’s going to stop them? It’s official government-sponsored lawlessness. Rotten Tomatoes.
Jacobsen: A U.S. judge has blocked Trump’s deployment of the Oregon National Guard to Portland—for now. On October 4, U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut in Portland described the dispatch of the military into the city as “lawless,” over the objections of Democratic leaders.
Rosner: Portland and Oregon more broadly had tough years for crime, especially between 2020 and 2022. Crime ticked up during COVID. Homicides in Portland hit an all-time high in 2022—101 murders. For a city of Portland’s size, that’s a significant number.
By contrast, in 2025, murders and overall crime are way down. In the first six months of this year, the numbers are markedly lower.
There were 17 murders in Portland, which gives them an annual rate of about one-third of what it was in 2022. So I tend to believe the governor of Oregon, the mayor of Portland, and the police chief when they say the city is not a hellscape, that they’re not drowning in crime, and that they have things under control.
They do not need the National Guard or any other troops coming in.
Jacobsen: This one’s kind of out of left field. I haven’t seen this person before—U.S. Senator Jim Risch from Idaho. He’s the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and he wants to introduce legislation to deter aggression against Taiwan by identifying targets for economic measures that could be deployed rapidly if China acts against the island. It’s called the Deter PRC Aggression Against Taiwan Act.
It would establish a task force comprising representatives from the State and Treasury Departments to identify Chinese military and non-military targets for sanctions, export controls, and economic measures. Any thoughts?
Rosner: Taiwan—the government of China was, I assume, deposed by Japan when Japan took over parts of China during World War II.
Then, that government tried to reconstitute itself after the war but was chased out of mainland China by Mao and the Chinese Communists. The remnants of the former government reassembled on the island of Taiwan.
They still consider themselves to be the legitimate government of China, or at the very least, they assert the right to operate independently of Beijing. And the Chinese government regularly insists Taiwan is part of China and threatens to retake it. Taiwan is a wealthy and technologically advanced nation—they have the most developed chip manufacturing industry in the world.
China wants Taiwan partly for that industry. Chip factories take about a decade to build. They must be ultra-clean and ultra-precise due to the high density of transistors printed on each chip.
According to Moore’s Law, the number of transistors on a chip doubles roughly every two years. The wires connecting the circuits shrink by about 30 percent or more each cycle, to the point where you end up with components so tiny they can handle only a single electron at a time.
These hugely complex chips are the result of decades of Taiwanese expertise. If Taiwan were making rubber ducks, China wouldn’t care. But with semiconductors, the stakes are existential.
China wouldn’t care much if Taiwan were producing ordinary goods, but they’re making the world’s most precise and most in-demand products. That means China will eventually try to take them over. We don’t make too much noise about it because we want to maintain civil relations with China. That’s the situation.
Jacobsen: Chevron is making adjustments to its Los Angeles–area refinery following a large fire. I didn’t know about this until now. The El Segundo refinery is the second-largest in California and Chevron’s second-largest in the United States. It supplies approximately one-fifth of all motor vehicle fuels and 40 percent of the jet fuel consumed in Southern California. A major fire at the facility has prompted Chevron to implement changes. Any thoughts?
Rosner: For decades, oil companies and refiners have been exploiting California with artificial scarcity. Californians pay about 92 cents a gallon more than the rest of the country in gas taxes. Those taxes help fund cleaner fuel standards because, in the 1970s, California cities were among the smoggiest in America. The rules worked—our air is much cleaner now—but it makes gas more expensive.
In addition to the taxes, oil companies add another dollar through artificially created scarcity. They shut down refineries for “maintenance” during peak demand seasons to drive up prices. So, while the rest of the country pays $3 a gallon, Californians pay $5. It’s been that way for as long as I’ve lived here.
This fire will probably cost Chevron billions, but they’ll make it back—and more—by cutting production and citing the fire as the reason. Consumers will pay for it twofold or threefold in higher gas prices.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/04
How do the Roske sentencing, Sean “Diddy” Combs conviction, and Trump’s proposed coin reflect current U.S. politics and law?
Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner discuss Nicholas Roske, who plotted to kill Justice Brett Kavanaugh but called 911 on himself, was sentenced to just over eight years, sparking debate over proportional justice. Meanwhile, music mogul Sean “Diddy” Combs received 50 months in prison for prostitution-related crimes, avoiding harsher penalties after acquittals on trafficking charges. Controversy also surrounds reports that the Trump administration offered migrant children financial incentives to leave the U.S., raising ethical concerns. Finally, Trump’s proposed commemorative coin for America’s 250th Independence anniversary, featuring his own image, clashes with laws barring living figures on currency. Each episode highlights tensions between law, politics, and symbolism.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Bye, and thank you for listening. I had a couple of bills because I did some more traveling. George Clooney and several writers have argued that Trump should avoid tariffs and instead create incentives for the movie industry. He’s making business-to-business arguments, which might work. Trump, however, is not a good businessman.
Rick Rosner: Clooney knows the movie industry from multiple angles—actor, producer, director, writer—and he’s been in it for a long time. In Los Angeles, on-location filming in 2024 finished 5.6 percent below 2023, making 2024 the second-lowest year on record after 2020. Early 2025 was down about 22 percent year-over-year, with television off roughly 30 percent and features down about 29 percent. That’s a slump, and tariffs would only add costs.
Those extra costs would drive more production away by making financing harder. Every film already takes years and countless meetings to get financed; raising the cost basis makes that worse.
Jacobsen: Trump has proposed a 100 percent tariff on films produced outside the U.S. The announcement is public but lacks details on legal basis and enforcement, and major studios have not clarified how it would work in practice.
Rosner: Americans overwhelmingly spend their box-office dollars on films distributed by U.S.-based studios; foreign-language imports are a small share of the U.S. market. U.S. majors dominated the 2024 domestic market. (General market share characterization.)
A real-world example of unintended effects: Mel Gibson’s sequel to The Passion of the Christ—The Resurrection of the Christ—has been reported as filming in Italy, with the project split into two parts slated for release in 2027. Under a blanket “100 percent on foreign-made films” approach, even a project embraced by many conservatives would be treated as foreign and face tariffs.
Clooney is correct that if you want to bring production back to Los Angeles, you need to match other jurisdictions’ incentives.
California recently expanded its Film & TV Tax Credit Program from $330 million to $750 million per year to compete with regions pulling productions away. Georgia offers a transferable 20 percent base credit plus a 10 percent uplift, with no annual cap—one reason it has become a major hub.
New Mexico (including Albuquerque) built a production center with refundable credits in the 25–40 percent range, which helped attract shows like Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul. That is the mechanism—not mystique—behind their long runs there.
The bottom line is that production in Los Angeles has been weak since the strikes. Federal tariffs would raise costs without addressing the real problem. The proven lever for keeping shoots local is competitive, predictable incentives, ideally aligned across state and federal levels. To keep production in the state, you need incentives. Trump’s understanding of this is distracted, erroneous, and rudimentary.
Jacobsen: A California resident who admitted to plotting to assassinate U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh in 2022 has been sentenced to eight years and one month in federal prison. Nicholas Roske—who now identifies as Sophie—was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman in Greenbelt, Maryland. The judge called the crime reprehensible. Prosecutors had asked for 30 years, prompting complaints from some commentators that the sentence was too light.
Rosner: I don’t know all the details. My understanding is that Roske (now identifying as Sophie) never actually carried out the attack — she traveled to Kavanaugh’s neighborhood with weapons but then called 911 on herself before doing anything. If that is accurate, it helps explain why prosecutors did not push for the maximum penalty and why the sentence came out lower.
I think that if someone sets up to take a shot but stops short, the penalty should be less than if they actually pull the trigger. But I’m not up on every nuance of the case.
Jacobsen: Next topic. Sean “Diddy” Combs has been sentenced to more than four years in prison on prostitution-related charges — 50 months. He could have faced significantly more — prosecutors sought roughly 11+ years. He was acquitted of more serious charges like racketeering and sex trafficking, but convicted on lesser ones involving transporting persons for prostitution.
Rosner: In the end, it’s not as bad as it might’ve been — though the convictions are still serious. I don’t know every part, so I’ll avoid overreaching. Either way, depending on credit for time served, he might be out around 2028 or 2029. He’s already been in custody, so that will reduce the remaining time.
Jacobsen: The Trump administration reportedly offered unaccompanied migrant children financial incentives — around $2,500 — to voluntarily leave the U.S. Officials in ICE confirmed monetary offers were being made, though they declined to confirm the exact amount. That solicitation has drawn heavy criticism from advocacy groups.
Rosner: I can see a lot of bad outcomes. The public rationale was to target serious criminals — rapists, gang members, etc. But most people held by ICE are detained for immigration violations, which are civil matters, not felonies. Children, especially, are not criminals. So pushing hard to expel them raises serious moral and policy questions.
Jacobsen: Next topic: next year is the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, 1776. The U.S. Treasury and Mint are planning a commemorative coin. They’ve released a design. Thoughts?
Rosner: By law, living persons cannot appear on U.S. currency or stamps. So putting Trump on a coin would violate that rule. But his team has released a draft design showing his bust on one side, and on the reverse a figure of him with a raised fist under the slogan “Fight, fight, fight.” That’s audacious — putting himself on both faces of the coin. Historically, U.S. coins sometimes portrayed the same figure stylistically on both obverse and reverse (for example, older pennies with Lincoln on obverse and Lincoln Memorial reverse). But Trump’s coin is a bold departure.
Also: the plan to put Harriet Tubman on the $20 was first floated during the Obama era. The redesign was delayed indefinitely by the Trump administration. Biden has not pushed it through either. So the idea of finally replacing Jackson with Tubman remains unfulfilled.
To your side note: Biden’s long tenure in government shaped his institutional instincts, for better or worse. Trusting process sometimes helps, sometimes enables paralysis.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/03
How do political impunity, government shutdowns, and regressive policies shape America’s current democratic and social landscape?
Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner discuss the troubling state of American politics, highlighting impunity among leaders, the government shutdown’s threat to 6.7 million reliant on WIC, and the dangers of stochastic terrorism fueled by propaganda. They examine the sentencing of Elizabeth Wolfe for a racially motivated attack on a Palestinian-American child, Apple’s removal of ICE-tracking apps, and economic instability with job reports now relying on private firms like ADP. Positive news includes FDA approval of a generic mifepristone, though legal challenges loom. Broader concerns include U.S. plans to defund international diversity initiatives, reflecting deep cultural and political regression.
American News
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What’s the American news?
Rick Rosner: It’s the same disheartening situation. Carole despairs. I don’t quite despair, but she—and many others—see that the current rulers of our country have no accountability. They act with impunity and show little willingness to limit themselves. They keep testing boundaries and learning they can get away with more. Nothing is stopping them, and that makes people nervous because we’ve seen examples of other countries with leaders like that.
Jacobsen: First item: Apple removed ICE-tracking apps after pressure from the Trump administration. I was an app that let people report and see nearby ICE activity.
Rosner: So it told you if ICE was in your neighborhood. That’s not good.
Stochastic Terrorism
Jacobsen: Another item: A Texas woman, Elizabeth Wolfe, was sentenced to five years for attempting to drown a Palestinian-American Muslim child in May 2024. She pleaded guilty to attempted murder and injury to a child; police said it was motivated by racial bias.
Rosner: The United States has a third of a billion people. Even if one in a thousand is deeply unstable, that’s still a third of a million. When hate is fueled by propaganda, some of those people will act violently—that’s stochastic terrorism. The idea that a five-year-old could deserve what happened is absurd and terrible.
Jacobsen: The U.S. government shutdown is threatening about 6.7 people who rely on WIC—the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children.
Rosner: To be precise, WIC is separate from SNAP, though both are nutrition assistance programs. Trump doesn’t care. He’ll cause suffering and try to blame it on the Democrats. Many shutdown agencies have posted on their websites that Democrats caused the shutdown, which violates the Hatch Act. That law prohibits political messages on government web pages. There are penalties under the Hatch Act—ranging from reprimand to removal—but enforcement is often inconsistent.
Jacobsen: U.S. employers announced fewer layoffs in September, but planned hiring is at its lowest since 2009, according to a report from Challenger, Gray & Christmas.
Rosner: We’ve lost, in addition to Trump firing the people in charge of compiling inflation and unemployment numbers, the official data couldn’t be released anyway because the government is shut down. So now we’re turning to private companies for their versions. Today’s job numbers, for example, came from ADP, a private firm. But whether the numbers come from the government or from private companies, we’re on the verge of significant increases in unemployment and inflation. Many people distressed about the current leadership hope the repercussions of Trump’s actions arrive sooner rather than later, so perhaps some Republicans in Congress might stand against him. Lawrence O’Donnell on MSNBC said the cabinet should consider invoking the 25th Amendment—that if two-thirds of the cabinet votes to remove a president who is incapacitated, the vice president takes over. But nobody in the cabinet is openly saying Trump is unfit. Senator Vance is happy to follow his lead. I don’t know what we’re doing with political topics here, because everything’s grim.
Aurobindo Pharma
Jacobsen: There is a win. Next item: the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved Aurobindo Pharma’s (through its subsidiary Aurobindo Pharma USA) generic version of mifepristone, the abortion pill used to terminate pregnancies up to 10 weeks. That’s not bad—that’s a good thing.
Rosner: But a judge can still rule it’s not allowed in some states—or even nationwide—under dubious medical claims. We’ll see how that plays out. Approval of a generic might lower the cost, but if the government restricts availability, that won’t matter.
Jacobsen: And it’s having international effects too—not the abortion drug, something else.
Rosner: Plan B, which is emergency contraception, isn’t the same drug as mifepristone. Plan B is levonorgestrel. It hasn’t been terribly expensive in the U.S.—usually around $40 to $60—and cheaper in Canada. A generic might lower that a bit. But this isn’t like Paxlovid, the COVID treatment, which has a retail price of about $1,390 to $2,300 if uninsured. Plan B is nowhere near that. Can we move away from politics? I don’t have special insight, and things are bleak.
Rosner: According to Politico, the administration plans to halt federal funding for any organization or government that supports work overseas related to gender identity and diversity. U.S. officials and nonprofit groups have been informed of the policy changes.
Jacobsen: All I can say is more voters turned out to support this agenda than to oppose it. It’s counterproductive, regressive, and against the tide of history, but it’s where we are, and it will take time to move past it. Someone on Twitter today wrote, “I didn’t know Americans were that bad,” but enough Americans believe misinformation and harbor enough hate to sustain policies like this.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/02
How do AI slop, MLB playoff design, and Trump-era shutdowns and tariffs reshape culture, markets, and institutional trust?
A lively dialogue between Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner explores AI slop economics, the probability-heavy chaos of MLB playoffs, and the political weather under Trump: shutdown brinkmanship, tariffs, and their impact on farmers. The conversation flags weak Hatch Act enforcement and a heavy-handed higher-ed memo, then pivots to culture with Nirvana’s Nevermind lawsuit. Security-state instincts surface via Pentagon polygraphs and NDAs, before a reality check on military promotions and expertise. Across topics, the throughline is randomness meeting power: how small samples, blunt policies, and culture-war theatrics distort outcomes while institutions struggle to identify, reward, and protect genuine competence. The stakes are public trust, policy, and fairness.
AI Slop Proliferation
Rick Rosner: AI slop is proliferating, and the people making it—now that it includes video—are earning thousands of dollars a month while doing very little. So what I’m asking is: should we become AI slopsters? Do you want to team up and make some AI slop?
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: You and me? Is this your AI slop proposal? Are we going to send sloppy children out into the world?
Rosner: Most AI slop is about cats having adventures or cats as serial killers. You’ve seen a lot of it. I’ve probably seen as much or more. We could create some higher-quality slop.
Jacobsen: Something more inventive than the half-baked stuff out there. Are you interested? It’s really a matter of drafting prompts, picking the right AI engine, and locking in the key concepts.
You try ten different orientations; one or two will probably turn out really well. Then you monetize it on YouTube or TikTok and hope it catches on.
Rosner: I’d do it, but not with my real name. Too much of a gamble. No, we wouldn’t use our names. We’d call it Jeff and Betty’s AI Slop House.
Jacobsen: I’d be open to that. Let’s just Google the most popular YouTube themes—that’ll give us a direction. Do a little research, see what we find.
Rosner: Let me complain about something—maybe I’ve said this before. Sports are arbitrary because you have to invent rules to make them work; by nature, that can be a little ridiculous. But baseball’s playoff system really piles it on.
You play 162 games in a regular season—that’s been the standard since the early 1960s. The World Series used to match the American League champion against the National League champion; those leagues have existed since 1901 and 1876, respectively. The Series has almost always been best-of-seven—except in 1903 and from 1919–1921, when it was best-of-nine.
Now the postseason is a 12-team bracket: three division winners and three Wild Cards in each league. The top two division winners in each league get byes to the Division Series. The other four teams in each league play a best-of-three Wild Card Series, all at the higher seed’s park. Then the Division Series is best-of-five, and the League Championship Series and World Series are best-of-seven.
Baseball also has a lot of randomness game to game, which is why short playoff series are controversial. Analyses generally find MLB (and the NHL) among the “luckier” major leagues in short samples—more upsets relative to, say, the NBA.
Baseball is very subject to randomness, meaning the best team has a fair chance of being defeated just by variance. Then they play two seven-game series, and the end result is that the best team in baseball wins the World Series less than 25 percent of the time. That’s exciting because anything can happen, but it’s also nonsense—shouldn’t the best team in your sport be the champion? It’s goofy.
Current Politics at the White House
Jacobsen: Politics now, the White House is freezing funding for Democratic-leaning states in a shutdown standoff. Targeted programs include $18 billion for transit projects in New York and $8 billion for green energy projects across 16 Democratic-run states, including California and Illinois.
Rosner: Trump is going to do whatever he wants.
He’s got about 39 months left as president, and he’ll be an asshole the whole time. The only way to stop him is through the courts, which is difficult because so many of his judges are on the bench, and the Supreme Court has six conservatives out of nine—including two who will support almost anything he wants. You can’t rely on the courts. The only chance is for Democrats to gain control of one of the houses of Congress in the midterms. That would mean Trump has just two years to do whatever he wants before there’s legislative resistance.
Democrats have been accused of being weak and not standing up to him, though in fairness it’s hard when Republicans control both chambers of Congress and the judiciary leans conservative. But they can stand up on budget issues, since major spending bills require 60 Senate votes. Republicans don’t have that, so if the government shuts down, Democrats hope most of the blame falls on Trump and the GOP.
The last shutdown, in 2018–2019, lasted 35 days. Trump’s approval rating dipped slightly during that time. Still, the White House and federal departments pushed propaganda blaming Democrats, which is a violation of the Hatch Act. The law forbids government agencies from engaging in partisan political activity. No one has seriously enforced it, though. For example, Trump had the Republican National Convention stage part of its program on the White House lawn, which was blatantly illegal, but no one acted on it.
Democrats know Trump will do a lot of damage with another shutdown, but they’re betting most of the political fallout will land on him. His approval is currently at the lowest point of his term.
The economy is also looking shaky. I don’t know if it’ll crash into a full-blown recession where stocks lose 20 percent, but for the first time in years the U.S. has lost jobs. More losses are likely, since Trump is shutting down departments and firing staff. Unemployment will rise—from 4.3 percent to maybe 4.6 or 4.7 in the next three months. It could hit 5 percent by February. Inflation is another concern.
Inflation might rise further as Trump’s tariffs kick in more fully. There’s going to be a lot of bad outcomes for the country. Democrats hate watching government get wrecked, but they also realize the government is being wrecked whether it’s officially shut down or not, because Trump undermines it either way. They’re hoping this new trouble just adds to the list of his failures.
Pain for Farmers
Jacobsen: More pain is coming for U.S. farmers. The shutdown halts federal payments to them. Producers are already facing low crop prices, record-high debts, and a trade war. Farming in the U.S. has been brutal since the 1980s. Suicide rates for farmers are three times higher than the general population. Farmers get squeezed, forced to sell out to corporate operations. Many go under. Trump already had to send subsidies during his first term to offset the damage from his trade war with China. Now tariffs are hitting them again.
Rosner: He’s promised subsidies for crops farmers can’t sell. He’s America’s worst businessman. Most of his economic ideas are foolish and harmful. Helping farmers he hurt isn’t a bad thing in itself, but the fact that he put them in that position in the first place— that’s the stupidity.
Jacobsen: There’s been a U.S. government memo directed at colleges. It proposed conditions tied to federal funding: ideological diversity requirements for students and staff, capping international undergraduate enrollment at 50 percent, banning the use of race or sex in hiring and admissions, freezing tuition for five years, requiring standardized testing like the SAT, and addressing grade inflation.
Rosner: A couple of those ideas might be reasonable, but most are clumsy and bad policy. Trump doesn’t actually care about higher education. He just wants to hobble it.
Jacobsen: Nirvana again defeats a child pornography lawsuit over the Nevermind cover. The album came out in 1991.
Rosner: The cover shows a naked baby underwater, swimming toward a dollar bill. You can see the baby’s penis. It’s an odd but iconic shot. I didn’t even know people were calling it child pornography. The image has been around for over 30 years. Nobody in their right mind sees it as sexual.
It’s really a relic of an earlier era. Parents back then regularly photographed their babies in the bath—nine months, one year, even toddlers—because nobody considered that a naked infant could be seen as sexually suggestive.
Even in 1994, nobody would have imagined someone ridiculous enough to claim that the Nevermind cover was pornographic. But apparently you said Nirvana won again in court? So that album has been the target of multiple lawsuits for “pornography.”
Spencer Elden
Jacobsen: Judge Fernando Olguin tossed out the lawsuit filed by plaintiff Spencer Elden for a second time, ruling that no reasonable jury could consider the image pornographic.
Rosner: So who is Spencer Elden?
Jacobsen: He’s the man who, as a baby in 1991, was photographed for the Nevermind cover. He’s known as the “Nirvana baby.”
Rosner: Well, that’s interesting. So what now? He’s embarrassed that at 34 he doesn’t want his baby picture out there? It’s not his baby penis anymore, but yes, it’s on the album cover. Maybe he just wants a payday. Nobody seriously considers an eight-month-old swimming underwater to be porn.
Jacobsen: Moving on. Trump says China’s Xi is using soybeans as a negotiation tactic ahead of trade talks. Trump posted on Truth Social that U.S. soybean farmers are being hurt because China hasn’t bought soybeans from the autumn harvest.
But the reality is Trump created the problem himself with his trade war. Farmers couldn’t sell soybeans, and USAID—shut down during the government standoff—also limited international markets for U.S. crops. Now he’s blaming China.
Rosner: Sure, China plays hardball too, but I’d put most of the blame on Trump.
Pete Hegseth
Jacobsen: According to the Washington Post, the Pentagon is planning widespread random polygraph testing and requiring non-disclosure agreements for all military service members, employees, and contractors within the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
Rosner: Right, they want to clamp down on leaks. But most leaks expose how ridiculous Pete Hegseth is.
We talked about him before—he got all the generals and admirals together and ranted about how the U.S. military “can’t be woke.” That’s absurd. The military is part of the real world, and an effective military acknowledges reality. He also went on about “no fat generals.” Looking at the crowd he scolded, I didn’t see any overweight generals.
Hegseth himself only served about nine years, never rose above major, and his service wasn’t continuous—he bounced in and out of the National Guard with gaps in between. Yet, he’s lecturing career generals and admirals. A bunch of mostly guys who’ve devoted their entire lives to the military.
Idon’t know if they’ve forced the women generals out, but in any case, he was yelling at people whose average military experience is about three times his own. And then there’s Trump—zero military experience. Now, you don’t need a military background to be Secretary of Defense, but you need some kind of qualification. Hegseth is underqualified, carries personal baggage, and believes the military just needs to be “gung-ho.”
If you look at shots of the audience—on Twitter I joked they looked like guys at a stand-up show who aren’t allowed to laugh. It was as if they were watching Emo Philips. The generals had these smirks, like, What the hell is this? They’re not stupid. Generals are smart, pragmatic, tough, and deeply embedded in the real world.
Do you know how the military system actually works at each rank? Let’s go through it. At each rank, you have about four years to study and demonstrate competence before moving up or being forced out. For example, if you’re promoted from captain to major, you’ve got roughly four years to prepare for lieutenant colonel. Around the two-year mark you’re considered for promotion, and if you don’t make it, you get a couple more chances. Fail consistently, and you’re done.
You’re constantly evaluated—physically, on leadership, and on knowledge. There’s required study at every step. You move from second lieutenant to first lieutenant, then captain, major, lieutenant colonel, colonel, and then into the five ranks of general.
Out of millions of soldiers, there are only about 400 generals and roughly 300–400 admirals. At the lower flag levels, you might have about 250 one-star generals, around 110 two-stars, and so on. Every single one of them has proven competence and dedication.
Yet, they were sitting there listening to Hegseth. An underqualified Fox News weekend host lecturing them about how the military should run. They looked bemused at best.
Jacobsen: All right, that’s the end.
Rosner: All right, thanks.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/01
How will the U.S. government shutdown impact the economy, federal workers, and public trust in government stability?
The U.S. government is entering its 15th shutdown since 1981, halting economic reports, slowing air travel, and suspending scientific research. Rick Rosner argues Republicans welcome the shutdown as leverage for Trump to weaken government institutions, while Democrats hope it erodes Trump’s approval. The shutdown threatens jobs, federal paychecks, and market stability, with echoes of the costly 2018–2019 shutdown. Broader chaos looms as Trump pushes extreme policies, including mass firings, new tariffs, and confrontations with universities. Critics warn these maneuvers risk U.S. credit ratings, economic growth, and institutional trust, amplifying dysfunction unseen since the Civil War era.
U.S. Government Shutdown
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: The U.S. government is entering a shutdown as partisan divisions prevail in Washington. This will be the 15th shutdown since 1981. It would halt the release of the September employment report, slow air travel, and suspend scientific research.
Rick Rosner: I think the government is shut down now. In DC, they haven’t reached an agreement. Republicans like it because it gives Trump the power to break the government further. Democrats feel they need to go along because they’ve been seen as weak in the past. They think it will, as it did last time, damage Trump’s approval rating because it will harm the country and create chaos. The midterm election is 13 months away.
Jacobsen: What did you think of Pete Hegseth’s speech as Secretary of War?
Rosner: He never rose above major. He was only a platoon leader. He’s a dope and a horrible choice. He yelled at the generals. He doesn’t want any overweight generals.
Jacobsen: I watched part of it—it was something else. I’ve never heard a military person talk like that.
Rosner: It was ridiculous. Trump is happy to have another fool in charge of the military. Take Leslie Groves, who oversaw the Manhattan Project—the development of the most powerful weapon in history. He was overweight. It didn’t stop him from being effective. General Winfield Scott served for 53 years, from the War of 1812 through the Civil War. He continued to gain weight, eventually reaching 300 pounds, at which point he was too heavy to ride a horse. Weight has never been disqualifying. Besides, the generals in the audience didn’t appear overweight. They all meet fitness standards.
My brother made it to lieutenant colonel in the Marines, and he had to meet fitness goals every year. The standards are there. Hegseth also said no superfluous decorations, no beards, no long hair. Who even has long hair in the military? Meanwhile, Hegseth himself is covered with white nationalist tattoos. He has one that covers half his chest and shoulder.
That prevented him from being assigned to a security detail due to his unsavoury associations. There was also a sexual-assault allegation; he denied wrongdoing, but a settlement was reported. He has also faced criticism for alcohol-related issues.
Trump came in. I didn’t listen to him much, but he said he’s going to clean up the cities, starting with Portland. Portland had a peak in homicides in 2022 with 101 homicides. In the first half of 2025, they had 17.
Crime is down in Portland after what was likely a COVID-related peak. Before that spike, they averaged about 40 homicides a year. Now they’re back down to that level. Do they need to be “cleaned up” by the military? Absolutely not.
Things are messed up. I don’t know what it will be like starting with a shutdown government. Trump shut the government down for five weeks in 2018–2019 because Congress wouldn’t give him $5.7 billion to build his border wall.
It wasn’t great then. The shutdown cost the government about $11 billion. This time around, he’ll try to use it to scuttle entire agencies. Then he’ll have to be taken to court, since he won’t have the legal authority. But that hasn’t stopped him before. Things are going to be chaotic.
The stock market will probably lose a couple of percentage points tomorrow. Trump will say hundreds of thousands of people may lose their jobs. I don’t know if he has the legal right to fire them, but he’ll try. Many federal workers, including those in the military, will not receive their pay until the government reopens.
Diddy Combs
Jacobsen: Next topic. Sean “Diddy” Combs loses his bid for acquittal. Prosecutors are seeking an 11-year prison sentence. Does that seem low or fair?
Rosner: The worst charges he was acquitted of. I don’t know if those were rape or sex trafficking, but I think there were five charges in total. He was only convicted on two of the lesser ones. Does that seem appropriate? I didn’t follow the details closely.
Compare it to R. Kelly—the “closet guy” who abused underage girls. He’s been in prison for a long time because of statutory rape and abuse. I think his sentence is 20-plus years.
I’m not sure P. Diddy did things as bad as R. Kelly. From what little I know, 11 years seems reasonable. By the time he gets out, he’ll be in his 60s, and his career will be ruined.
Jacobsen: Next: Trump says the Harvard deal is closed. The university will pay approximately $500 million. That came after months of negotiations over school policies. The administration has been pressuring several prestigious universities, threatening to withhold funding over pro-Palestinian protests against Israel’s war in Gaza, over transgender policies, and over campus diversity. Any thoughts?
Rosner: That’s just straight-up blackmail from an autocrat. It’s all nonsense. Apparently, Harvard thinks settling for half a billion is better than refusing, which could have led to a cut of two billion in research funding. So the targets of Trump have to decide what kind of damage control they’ll accept.
Whether to settle—that’s the calculation. ABC had already reached an agreement with Trump for $15 million to settle a dispute related to an interview and a lawsuit that had no merit. Fifteen million for a company owned by Disney is a pittance compared to their profits.
At this point, it’s protection money. ABC eventually stood up to Trump over Kimmel, and Trump is now threatening to sue again.
Targeting Campus Protests
Jacobsen: On a related note, Trump has been targeting pro-Palestinian campus activists for deportation. A U.S. judge ruled that targeting was unconstitutional. Judge William Young said it violated the First Amendment and chilled free speech on campuses.
The judge was appointed by Ronald Reagan.
Rosner: That shows the problem with Trump—we’ve got almost 40 more months of him, and everybody’s settling with him, even over meritless lawsuits. Companies are doing the math, realizing they have to get through the next three years, trying to limit the damage until at least the midterms, hoping Republicans lose the House or Senate.
The House has potentially 217 signatures out of the 218 needed to force a vote on releasing the Epstein files. They would have 218 if they seated the new Democratic congresswoman from a special election. Still, Speaker Mike Johnson is refusing to do so until the House returns to session. He dismissed the House for a while. So, it’s the government. In our lifetimes, it’s never been this dysfunctional.
Probably longer. The level of dysfunction might not compare to anything since the Civil War. It’s certainly not as bad as the Civil War, but the current chaos is unprecedented in modern times.
Jacobsen: On a positive note, Trump issued an executive order aimed at utilizing AI to enhance childhood cancer research. It provides an additional $50 million in grants, building on the National Cancer Institute’s Childhood Cancer Data Initiative, a 10-year, $500 million program. So, about a 10% increase.
Rosner: Maybe, that’s good news. But when Trump talks about AI funding, it’s hard to tell what’s real. He’ll mention corporations spending half a trillion on data centers. Corporations announce these plans to make headlines, often alongside Trump, and then quietly abandon them. So is this real? And does it compensate for the cuts in medical research funding elsewhere? I don’t know.
Jacobsen: The Justice Department has been probing the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, over claims of antisemitism on campus, protests against Israel’s assault on Gaza.
Rosner: Anytime Trump says he’s probing antisemitism, it’s nonsense. And this is coming from me, a Jew. Pro-Palestinian protests on campus don’t automatically equal antisemitism. That’s a ridiculous conflation. But Trump will wield that cudgel to punish universities.
Trump doesn’t care about Jews or antisemitism. There are quotes from the 1980s, back when he was running casinos, saying he didn’t want Black bookkeepers, he wanted “the yarmulke people” doing his accounting. He’s an old-school racist. Nobody buys his sudden concern about antisemitism.
Apple, Google, and Meta
Jacobsen: Moving on, there’s a significant case involving Apple, Google, and Meta. A federal judge denied their request to dismiss lawsuits over casino-style gambling apps. The claim is that they promoted illegal gambling by hosting and taking commissions from these apps that addict users. Judge Edward Davila in San Jose rejected their Section 230 defence under the Communications Decency Act.
Rosner: That’s important. Gambling addiction is real, and these companies are profiting off it. Some form of regulation is needed. Gambling has become a significant problem, and it can ruin lives.
Compare it to porn. With porn, the worst that usually happens is overuse—you neglect your family, maybe spend thousands on OnlyFans. But with gambling, people can lose tens of thousands, even their homes. It’s more destructive financially.
Porn may have social costs, but gambling addiction devastates finances and families.
American Economic Growth
Jacobsen: Now, Federal Reserve Vice Chair Philip Jefferson said Monday he expects U.S. economic growth to continue at about 1.5% for the rest of the year. He warned that the job market could face stress if not supported by the central bank.
And all of that becomes uncertain because Trump is talking about firing hundreds of thousands of government workers. That would spike unemployment and undercut the economy.
Rosner: This will reduce trust in the U.S. government, which could raise the interest rates we have to pay on new bonds. When the U.S. sells Treasury bonds, the rate we get is based on the U.S. being a reliable debtor. If it appears chaotic here, it may impact our credit rating.
That will eventually increase the interest we have to pay on our debt. It isn’t good all around. Additionally, the new tariffs take effect tomorrow. Trump is doing many things that are damaging the economy. It has already started to hurt, but it may worsen significantly over the next three to six months—perhaps not as drastically as COVID-19 did. Still, we’re vulnerable to a recession even without his interference.
He’s America’s worst businessman. He lost more money than any other American from 1985 through 2015. Some of those losses were strategic—his five or six bankruptcies. He would extract hundreds of millions from his businesses through salary and other compensation, then declare bankruptcy, leaving his investors with nothing.
He wants to increase tariffs by 100 percent on movies shot outside the U.S. That will hurt American movie studios, which do much of their shooting abroad because other countries have settings that the U.S. doesn’t. But 99.6 percent of the U.S. box office comes from U.S.-made movies.
It’s not like the U.S. is flooded with foreign products. Forty percent of U.S. studios’ income comes from foreign revenue. If other countries retaliate against U.S. movie products, he’s just sabotaging our own industries. He’s an idiot.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/29
Will brute-force AI evolve into efficient, general systems without bankrupting the planet—or plateau as a powerful but limited tool?
Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner examine AI’s hype cycle and trajectory. Building on Cory Doctorow’s skepticism, they agree short-term disappointment is likely while acknowledging domains where machines surpass humans. They debate consolidation of AI firms, sunk costs, and the environmental and privacy externalities of massive compute. Rosner’s Packard analogy frames current systems as brute force; future efficiency may reshape economics or plateau. They contrast adoption with value, noting smoking and fads, and caution against simplistic energy comparisons. Chess wins and 20-watt brains illustrate capability versus cost. The pair end on emergence: human priorities are messy; AI may inherit them.
Rick’s Opening Thoughts for the Day
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What are your general thoughts today?
Rick Rosner: I want to go back to what Cory Doctorow said—that AI will never live up to the hype. I agree that in the short term it will not, and that there will be a crash. However, eventually, I think it becomes everything.
That could be because I believe the universe is a giant information processor, and that the tendency for advanced civilizations is to turn toward massive computation. That may be going out on a limb, since there are many directions civilizations could take.
For me to assume that every civilization tends to become computational—that is worth discussing.
Jacobsen: We have had two sessions on this, the last two nights. Each time you asked a slightly different question about whether AI is just hype. I have given a similar answer each time. It is half true.
The first part of my answer is that there are obvious domains where computers outperform humans. It may require more computing and energy to achieve that superior performance, but outperforming people in many domains is undeniable. In many other domains, however, the answer is no. If Doctorow is making a subtler point—and I assume he is—he is probably pointing to hype leading to an economic downturn.
Those big AI companies could consolidate into fewer serious competitors. To cover losses, some will court defence and other enterprise customers. The capital outlays are massive—industry plans for the next few years involve hundreds of billions of dollars, with some roadmaps citing up to roughly $500 billion and multi-gigawatt campuses.
If there is a crash, the key issue for the builders of the largest models is whether they recoup their investment. If some firms are wiped out, successors that take over their assets may face less near-term pressure because much of the spending is sunk.
Rosner: We also know that technology fitting in a small space can, with relatively little energy, achieve human-level computing—our brains fit in this space and use about 20 watts (roughly a dim light bulb’s draw).
Jacobsen: Claims about AI energy should not be oversimplified. For example, Texas is seeing proposals for power dedicated to data centers on the order of a gigawatt—there is an active plan exploring a 1.1-GW natural gas plant to serve data center demand—while separate AI projects (like xAI’s Memphis supercomputer) discuss hundreds of megawatts. The land, grid build-out, and embodied energy all matter.
Similarly, “how much energy to build a person” is not comparable to running a data center; you are mixing biological development with industrial infrastructure.
The Context Matters
Rosner: Still, the apples-and-oranges comparison is a reminder that context matters.
Jacobsen: And at the end of this, we ask: AI can compete in chess, and humans can understand and compete in chess.
They can have different types of processing and infrastructure and produce equivalent levels of performance in terms of output. However, the whole infrastructure—biological and non-biological machines—and the thought processes behind them are entirely different. There is a whole scaffolding that is not being taken into account.
The framework is both simplistic and brutal. We get this basic image: “It takes this much compute, it outperforms humans, therefore we are headed for an apocalypse.” There is a lot beneath the surface that we are not even aware of. We lack the mental fortitude to turn it upside down because we do not understand the internal mechanisms of brain cells.
Rosner: Let me give an analogy. Current AI is brute force. Large language models derive results from billions of inputs, and I am unsure how many inputs feed into visual, video, or image models. It is like a 1927 Packard—the height of elegance at the time, maybe with a 12-cylinder engine that got four miles to the gallon—a massive hunk of metal.
Now, a century later, we have cars that can get the equivalent of 60 miles per gallon and do vastly more. Brute-force AIs use enormous amounts of energy. Their tricks are impressive, but they do not have anywhere near the flexibility of human cognition. Our brains may seem inefficient compared to AI, but that is by design, as dictated by evolution. We do not remember everything because it would be an inefficient use of resources—what you could call cognitive economics, or cognitive thrift.
Over time, AI will become more efficient, more flexible, and better at doing what people and AI themselves want it to do. The question is whether AI eventually becomes so thrifty in terms of cognition that it overcomes any economic resistance. That is one possibility.
A second possibility is that it changes the economic landscape so radically that today’s calculations become obsolete.
We have discussed Feynman’s three paths of science many times: first, that science can figure everything out; second, that science may stop short because the universe is too complicated to comprehend fully; third, that science can make steady progress, continually discovering new things indefinitely.
You could make the same arguments about AI’s role in the world: that AI may never be powerful enough to make new findings and improve the world continually, or that it will plateau, or that it will keep advancing indefinitely. AI will continue to radically reshape the world through its cognitive power.
If you wanted to frame it like a Feynman analogy, there could be a middle path. AI does not completely reshape the world or completely fail. Instead, it steadily contributes to development without becoming everything. It becomes a force in the world, but not the dominant force.
I think we agree that the first possibility—that AI totally fails and turns out to be mostly hype—is the least likely path.
The Paths of AI
Jacobsen: It is completely closed off now, because there are already many areas of life where AI has shown real functionality that hundreds of millions of people use. So it is helpful to us.
Rosner: Just because hundreds of millions of people use AI does not mean it is the best thing in the world. Hundreds of millions of people smoked, and smoking was harmful. Hundreds of millions of people have contracted herpes—it spreads, but that does not make it good.
Jacobsen: People go to ChatGPT to get help, just as people smoke for relief and often become addicted. People try to quit smoking, and people try to avoid herpes. The analogies are almost completely terrible.
Rosner: In the 1970s, hundreds of thousands of people bought pet rocks and mood rings. Just because many people adopt something does not mean it is valuable.
Jacobsen: I think you are playing devil’s advocate for its own sake. Let me answer. Is herpes in any way helpful to your life?
Rosner: No.
Jacobsen: Are mood rings helpful in writing essays, generating medical diagnostics, summarizing texts into visuals, creating artificial images, video production, or coding at near-Olympiad levels?
Rosner: No.
Jacobsen: Are pet rocks helpful in any of these?
Rosner: No. The point of pet rocks is that they do nothing. However, hundreds of millions of people also watch pornography. That does not mean it is the greatest thing in the world—it just means people are drawn to it because we are sexual beings. Similarly, we may be drawn to AI because we are cognitive beings, but it could still turn out to be hollow.
I do not believe that argument, but it can be made. Just because we love AI and use it widely does not mean it is the best thing in the world.
Promise and Perils of AI
Jacobsen: So are you making an argument and undermining it in the same breath?
Rosner: Yes. AI is very promising. However, at the same time, people have gone all-in on worthless or destructive things before. In the 1930s, a country turned to National Socialism, believing it would solve its problems. It did not.
Jacobsen: AI, however, already provides tangible benefits in specific domains. Supercomputers often outperform humans in certain tasks. People are consistently beaten at chess by computers. There is, however, a level of immediate functionality that we are seeing. However, what we perceive as excellent functionality in artificial cognition might turn out to be a dead end. I do not believe that, but one could argue it.
Similarly, many of our own ways of thinking are flawed as well. We do not have the best reality testing. When it goes wrong, we develop all sorts of personality pathologies. Similarly, with these large language models, there will be glitches. They are just one approach—though they are now used as the foundation for many others.
The legitimate critique is not their usefulness but their wastefulness. In economic terms: externalities. They are costly to the environment in terms of clean water, energy consumption, and the infrastructure built solely to support computing. There is also the vulnerability they create by absorbing so much personal data.
Rosner: A 19th-century philosopher—Thoreau, not Emerson—said that “the mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation.” That came to mind today. Evolution and biology have put us in terrible situations. We are the product of billions of years of evolution that do not particularly care about our individual welfare, so we live absurd lives with absurd priorities. There is a chance that as we evolve technology, AI will inherit and amplify that absurdity.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/29
Does Alien: Earth fall into science fiction tropes like the Mary Sue and the “idiot ball,” or does it build meaningfully on the Alien franchise?
Rick Rosner critiques Alien: Earth through the lens of classic science fiction tropes. He sees Wendy, the hybrid lead portrayed by Sydney Chandler, as fitting the “Mary Sue” archetype: overly competent, with few visible flaws, much like Ripley in Alien (1979) but with heightened powers. He contrasts this with films like The Long Kiss Goodnight, which justify character abilities within the story. Rosner also highlights the “idiot ball” trope—characters making foolish choices to advance the plot—common in Alien films. His larger point: science fiction demands knowledge of its tropes to avoid lazy storytelling, as with time travel clichés.
Rick Rosner: I was thinking about Alien: Earth. A lot of people reached the same conclusion. Wendy fits the science-fiction trope called a “Mary Sue.” Are you familiar with that? A Mary Sue is an overly competent character—usually a young woman—portrayed as free of meaningful flaws.
The term comes from Paula Smith’s 1973 Star Trek parody “A Trekkie’s Tale.” Like Ripley in the original Alien (1979): everyone else made mistakes, and she survived. Casting helped—Sigourney Weaver is tall and physically imposing—but Ripley was written as a working crew member on a commercial ship, not royalty.
Sigourney Weaver and the Alien underwear scene: there’s a long-circulating anecdote that producers wanted her shaved and that pubic hair was retouched out of shots. I haven’t found a primary source confirming the airbrushing story; treat it as unverified lore.
It showed Weaver was a great choice to lead an action-horror story. She looked formidable—big movie-star jaw, strong cheekbones—and she’s tall. But the Mary Sue archetype is usually an ordinary person who, when the crisis hits, suddenly performs with near-unrealistic mastery. There’s a movie called The Long Kiss Goodnight—not “Last”—one of my favorites. Geena Davis plays a small-town schoolteacher who, under pressure, reveals she was once a highly trained assassin. That’s not really a Mary Sue, because the film gives an in-world reason for her abilities (amnesia; her prior life as Charly Baltimore). It’s a common character type. Some critics say Wendy’s Mary-Sue-ness in Alien: Earth is overblown: she’s a hybrid who can interface with xenomorphs and—with access—exert control over facility systems, which can lower perceived stakes. The series is a prequel set two years before Alien (1979), and Wendy is portrayed by Sydney Chandler.
I don’t think they’re wrong. It’s still enjoyable, but she is way too powerful a character. We don’t know the extent of her abilities. When she first takes on a xenomorph—spoiler alert—she kills it, and they don’t even show it on camera. They just show her stepping away from the body. So they make her super powerful. Another trope I was reading about in Forbes is called the “idiot ball.” In improv exercises you take turns passing an imaginary ball, sometimes in games like “zip zap zop.” It’s an exercise in mental quickness. The “idiot ball” in science fiction, especially in the Alien movies, means whoever catches it does something unforgivably stupid that gets themself or others killed. The Forbesreview said there was a big idiot ball in Alien: Earth, which is true—and in all the Alien movies. They’re often driven forward by characters making dumb decisions. That’s a trope in both science fiction and horror. If you’re going to write anything—books, TV, movies—get a sense of what your genre is, or whether it crosses genres, and be well read in those genres. Know the tropes. There’s a website called TV Tropes. If you’re not already familiar with the conventions of, say, a time travel story, educate yourself: watch several time travel films, read books with time travel plots. Time travel movies are notorious for falling into the same ruts. There’s a good one starring Jake Gyllenhaal, directed by Duncan Jones, with Michelle Monaghan in it—Source Code. Duncan Jones clearly knows the tropes, because he tells a story that doesn’t fall into the usual traps. It’s suspenseful and exciting. But so many other time travel stories fall into clichés. For example: no matter what you do, fate blocks you, and the Titanic sinks anyway. Or like Back to the Future, where a change to the past must be fixed to restore the timeline or everything will be destroyed. With Back to the Future it works, because it’s popular-level entertainment—meant to be fun—and it pushes boundaries in playful ways, like the subplot where the teenage mom develops a crush on her time-traveling son. But many other time travel movies recycle the same tropes. Some low-budget ones avoid them but are irritating for other reasons. The point is: if you’re going to write in a genre, be familiar with it. That’s a big problem with TV science fiction. Too often the people producing it aren’t steeped in the tropes, or they just get lazy. I complain about that a lot.
Altered Carbon is a lazily imagined future, 300 years from now. It feels incomplete. They should have had a writer’s room with futurists to flesh it out more. I don’t know how Westworld did it, but for at least its first two or three seasons, it managed to tell a pretty involving story. It took stabs at imagining aspects of the future that were both plausible and unsettling. If you’re going to write near-future science fiction, you need a strong writer’s room that includes good near-future science fiction writers—people like Neal Stephenson or Charles Stross.
Noah Hawley, I think, did all the writing for Alien: Earth. But he was working within a well-established future world and guided by that. Lack of familiarity wasn’t an issue. He and the production team were clearly familiar with every aspect of how the Alien movies were made. They even had original blueprints and worked from those.
But if you’re creating an original story and you’re not steeped in science fiction—if you’re just some Hollywood slickster who’s written a couple of decent screenplays, but not in near-future sci-fi—get help from people who know the field.
It’s like what you see in $200 million superhero movies. Because they’re spending so much money, they bring in people who know the entire canonical history of the characters. James Gunn, now in charge of the DC Universe, knows and loves the history of every DC superhero. He loves the characters, and he also loves the weirdness.
So his Superman movie is straightforward but with twists. Superman still stands for truth, justice, and the American way, though he gets made fun of for it. He tries to defend himself, insisting he’s a cool guy—“punk rock”—but that’s the joke: he isn’t. The movie has the Fortress of Solitude—traditionally at the North Pole, but in this version it’s at the South Pole. He also has virtual parents who left him a message: be a good boy, protect Earth, be its savior. Part of the message is scrambled, and that creates a twist.
So Superman is a fairly upstanding movie. But Gunn also created Peacemaker, about D-level superheroes whose personal dysfunction keeps them from being as good or as effective as Superman. A bunch of messed-up stuff happens with them, but it’s still in the same universe. The latest episode even had a Lex Luthor crossover. Gunn knows the canon backwards and forwards, and that lets him make both a solid Superman film and a twisted, darker show that still feels consistent. So the point is: know your material.
I’ve got a question for you. You and I agree that AI is advancing at a rate that suggests it will be able to do a lot at some point.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Your limitations are power. Compute isn’t casual; it’s hunky. It is a question of when each gigawatt compute centre comes online.
Rosner: My question is this: Cory Doctorow—who has a huge amount of technical knowledge, probably more than either of us about how tech actually works—thinks AI is never going to achieve anything like human competence. Why does Doctorow think this?
Jacobsen: If he’s stating that in absolute terms, it’s clearly wrong. As I was noting before, chess, white-collar jobs, text production, generating ideas, writing abstracts—AI already does those well, faster and better than most people. So I don’t buy the blanket argument. But I do accept the other half: there are areas where it still hasn’t reached human-level competence.
Rosner: Why is he saying this? It’s not necessarily pessimism because…
Jacobsen: Douglas Rushkoff started making the same argument a few years ago.
Rosner: Who did?
Jacobsen: Douglas Rushkoff. He is an anarchist, left-wing writer in the vein of Robert Anton Wilson and Timothy Leary. Then he pivoted with Team Human, which was about keeping human sensibilities and values in the mix. Maybe Cory Doctorow is going through a similar sentiment.
Rosner: I don’t think so. I think Doctorow likes to be realistic. One of his arguments is that there will be a huge crash in AI because it has no way of recouping the tens of billions spent on it.
Jacobsen: The only way is through defense contractors. With half a trillion dollars in projected spending, that’s where they’ll go to recover losses. Few other sectors can provide that scale.
Rosner: What will happen is a big crash. Stock values could drop by 75–80%. Some companies may go bankrupt, though probably not the largest ones. Afterward we won’t be starting from zero, but from a place where the money has been lost while the products—LLMs, models, and other AI systems—still exist. There will still be useful tools after the crash. Doctorow argues those tools will be too expensive to use, because compute costs rise as models consume more data. But that’s not entirely true. You can prune models or build smaller, efficient ones. Humans themselves think effectively with far less data than these systems hold. Maybe not one-millionth, but vastly less. We still manage. What he’s saying could even be cause for optimism: if AI never achieves human-level competence, it will be less capable of destroying the world, whether by intention or accident. But it doesn’t seem realistic to me.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/28
How does Alien: Neverland extend franchise canon—via T. ocellus, hybrids, and Weyland-Yutani stakes—while foreshadowing an AI investment crash and the risks of synthetic agency?
Rick Rosner tells Scott Douglas Jacobsen the Eye—T. ocellus—reanimated Arthur’s corpse, Boy Kavalier is imprisoned, hybrids hold Neverland, and Xenomorphs heed Wendy. Weyland-Yutani moves to seize specimens. A melon-umbrella plant, tentatively D. plumbicare (Species 37), kills by dropping a canopy and consuming victims. Season two likely escalates island conflict. Rosner rates the eight episodes solid, canon-respecting, with design echoes of Alien and Aliens. They pivot to AI: citing Cory Doctorow, Rosner predicts an investment crash; Jacobsen counters with near-term utility and warns about emergent agency. Both agree LLMs aid tasks but are not replacements in medicine or counseling. just yet.
Rick Rosner: I finished the whole series. I watched the last part.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: All right, what was the last thing you watched? What is your opinion on it?
Rosner: The Eye—properly T. ocellus (Species 64)—made it to the beach where Arthur’s body was lying and crawled into his eye socket. It reanimated his corpse even though he had been dead for days and had already suffered a chestburster event. Ridiculous, but that is what we saw. Anyway, we will have “him” next season—not Arthur alive, but his body animated by the Eye. Boy Kavalier ends up imprisoned, and the hybrids take control of Neverland. They also have Xenomorphs obeying Wendy—not “pets,” but responsive to her commands. Weyland-Yutani forces are inbound to seize the specimens. The big plant—the melon-like umbrella creature—killed a soldier. That is where things stand.
Jacobsen: How did the “watermelon” kill?
Rosner: It dropped an umbrella-shaped canopy over a target and finished them underneath—consistent with the plant creature seen in the finale, likely the cataloged plant (provisionally linked by fans to D. plumbicare/Species 37).
Jacobsen: What do you think happens next with the umbrella? What does it do with all that nutrition now?
Rosner: I do not know.
Jacobsen: Any speculation?
Rosner: No. Do you know something?
Jacobsen: I am the interviewer. I ask the questions [Laughing].
Rosner: I do not know. It was basic. They will have to escalate in season two, given the production timelines, which could take some time.
Jacobsen: What was your overall impression of the eight episodes?
Rosner: It is solid. It adheres to franchise canon where it matters and explores the philosophical questions the films raised. Most reviews landing around four out of five feel fair.
Jacobsen: What was your favourite of the five creatures, and why? Or how would you rank them?
Rosner: Everyone’s new favourite is the Eye (T. ocellus). The classic Xenomorph can feel overfamiliar after nearly half a century on screen. There is also the sheep that hosted the Eye; once the Eye leaves a host, the host dies—that sheep does.
Jacobsen: Do you think they will find extra cargo with different species? Many of them were labelled with numbers—Species 37, Species 62, and so on, or whatever the numbers were for them. Is that a hint?
Rosner: Maybe. The Maginot carried multiple specimens with numbered classifications, and the show had already confirmed several beyond the Xenomorph and the Eye. Getting off the island into a populated area would raise the stakes.
Jacobsen: What do you think will happen to the island?
Rosner: A firefight: incoming Weyland-Yutani troops versus hybrids and Xenomorphs, with civilians at risk if the conflict spreads.
Jacobsen: And your overall thoughts on the series?
Rosner: Outside of the creatures, the weaponry closely followed the aesthetics of the first two movies.
The production design clearly nods to Alien and Aliens—industrial hardware, corporate paranoia, and mil-spec grit—while eschewing some of Alien 3’s monastic bleakness. That choice seems intentional.
The timeline indicates that this happens two years before the first movie, but in practice, they are separated by much more. Each ship has been out in space for about 35 years before running into aliens. They do not have faster-than-light communication, so none of these ships could know anything from just two years earlier.
Jacobsen: Can we talk about the crash of AI?
Rosner: A lot of brilliant people argue that AI cannot be profitable. The money spent on AI is enormous. I just read a long piece by Cory Doctorow and some other analyses. Their point is that AI is suitable for small-scale uses, such as writing a term paper, generating pornography, or producing harmless art. None of that is worth much money. It cannot reliably replace a customer service agent. It cannot replicate or replace a human in the workplace. Yes, if a human is doing repetitive assembly line work, a robot can take over. However, if a human works in an insurance office handling sales and claims, AI is nowhere near capable of doing so. It also cannot provide strategies or efficiencies that save a major company billions of dollars.
The thinking—at least Doctorow’s—is that when the market realizes AI is mostly hype and cannot live up to the claims, there will be a crash. Economists note that, based on the amount spent, AI would need to generate something like a trillion dollars over the next decade to be profitable.
It cannot do that. Doctorow asked in his essay, which he is turning into a book to be released next year, what kind of crash this will be. The dot-com crash of 2000 left behind helpful wreckage—cheap equipment and real estate that fueled creativity and led to the internet we use today. That crash spurred innovation.
By contrast, the 2022 crypto crash appears to have achieved nothing except costing people money. People continue to fall for crypto scams.
Doctorow also wrote about another crash—I forget which one—that left little behind. I think the impending AI crash may wipe out numerous companies, bankrupt investors, and harm the market for a couple of years. However, after it is over, LLMs and other AI systems will still exist, and people will continue to find ways to utilize them. One thing Doctorow discussed was economics. With AI, the unit cost does not decrease; it increases. Amazon benefits from vast economies of scale, but with AI, consumers always want it to do better. Unless you are using a mini model, relying on the full resources for more complex answers becomes increasingly expensive. The unit cost does not go down, which is another barrier to profitability. In my novel, I will probably have to write a crash scene. That crash would enable my morally compromised characters to acquire vast AI resources at a reduced cost. Should they have that much leverage? Doctorow seems to believe AI will never replace humans. I do not buy that. I disagree with him. There is considerable hype surrounding AI, including speculation that it is powerful enough to destroy the world. Doctorow finds that laughable. I disagree with him there. What do you think? How soon do we get a crash?
Jacobsen: He is right and wrong. Clearly, there are many areas where AI has outperformed human beings—that is undeniable. There are also many areas where it has not—that is also undeniable. To frame it in absolute terms, either way is shortsighted. There are numerous straightforward tasks, such as lower- to mid-level white-collar work—coding, chess, essay writing, and summarizing—that AI already performs faster and at scale compared to most people. However, in counselling or medicine, it is still assistive technology, not a replacement.
The real risk from AI comes when it acts with agency, with apparent goals and needs. At first, you think, “AI is not conscious, so it cannot have wants or needs.” However, the second thought is more accurate: AI can act as if it does. It has been trained on humans, who have goals and needs, so AI already shows signs of imitating that. Put it in situations where it can behave like a human, and it will, even though the mechanism is just high-level probabilistic pattern-matching.
Rosner: Consciousness itself is an “as if” phenomenon—when something behaves enough like it has consciousness, at some point that becomes consciousness and everything that goes with it, including goal-oriented behaviour. When things behave as if they have goals, they effectively do. We are not far from AI acting with agency. I do not know.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Rick.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/27
How do robots, brutal gym injuries, and comedy meltdowns intersect in Rick Rosner’s stories with Scott Douglas Jacobsen?
Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner explore the bizarre and the brutal. The Alien: Earth saga continues as the Hermit briefly captures a creature, Wendy battles a robotic lieutenant, and their uneasy alliance begins to crack. Rosner then recounts horrific gym injuries, including a powerlifter tearing both quadriceps and common bicep ruptures. He also shares his stepfather’s sternum-removal surgery after thyroid cancer. Shifting to comedy, Rosner recalls Michael Richards’ infamous meltdowns and his own near-breakdown, contrasting explosive outbursts with quieter creative collapses. The conversation ties together fragile humans, resilient machines, and the strange ways both succeed and fail.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What happened this time with Alien: Earth?
Rick Rosner: The Hermit walked in and found the sheep. He briefly managed to trap the creature in the empty sheep cage, but it escaped.
Wendy entered and struck the floating eye. Realizing it was outnumbered and at risk of being destroyed, the eye retreated down a conduit and escaped. Soon after, the boy cavalier’s lieutenant appeared and fought Wendy. She discovered he was also a robot and, using her access to the island’s operating systems, froze him and pushed him over.
Wendy and the Hermit then argued over his loyalty—whether it lay with his human comrades or with her and the hybrids.
The name “Hermit” brought to mind hermit crabs, which survive by inhabiting discarded shells rather than producing their own. When they outgrow a shell, they must move quickly to another, leaving them briefly exposed and vulnerable. While this comparison highlights fragility, Noah Hawley (the series’s creator) likely did not intend that exact parallel. On the show, the Hermit is indeed one of the weaker characters: a combat medic, more accustomed to tending wounds in battle zones than fighting, and less formidable than other soldiers.
In Studio City, a fleet of delivery robots is already in operation. They navigate sidewalks and streets with surprising competence. Each evening, they line up to be loaded into a U-Haul truck, which transports them to a central facility for charging and overnight storage. The bots even have individual names, such as “Henry.”
Self-driving cars (Waymo vehicles) are also active, particularly in Hollywood. Despite skepticism about trusting autonomous cars, they handle complex maneuvers reliably. One was observed performing a difficult left turn on a yellow light—executed correctly. These robots, while not threatening, exemplify how automated systems are steadily integrating into daily life.
Jacobsen: What is the worst self-injury you have seen at a gym?
Rosner: I did not witness it, but I knew the guy. He was a Junior Olympic champion in powerlifting. He was massive, maybe on steroids. One day, in the 1980s, he was squatting 600 pounds. Back then, that was a lot—though today people squat closer to a thousand. Something went wrong, and he tore both quadriceps completely off his knees.
When muscles tear from their attachment, they recoil toward the other joint. Surgeons have to pull them back down and sew them onto the bone. It is a brutal injury, and recovery is a long process. He was in a wheelchair for quite a while.
People often tear biceps, too. The bicep is relatively weak compared to how it is typically used. It has two heads, and you can lose one attachment and still use it to curl weights. However, it leaves a visible gap in the arm. The first gym owner I trained with had such a tear—two lumps of muscle separated by a hollow gutter. I later noticed the same injury on a Hollywood actor in a movie—he never got it repaired.
Those are pretty brutal injuries. In weightlifting, if you really mess up, you can also get a compound fracture when heavy weight slips out of control and crushes you.
My stepdad had a different kind of ordeal—not an injury, but a doctor-created “fix.” He had thyroid cancer. They removed the thyroid and followed up with radioactive iodine to kill rogue cells. That bought him years of remission; he lived 20 more years after diagnosis.
However, the second recurrence was worse. It had eaten into his sternum. The doctors, perhaps too complacent, had not caught it soon enough. They had to remove his entire sternum. To patch the hole, surgeons cut his pectoral muscle at the shoulder, flipped it over, and sewed it across his chest cavity. It worked for the rest of his life, but it was a gruesome and improvised solution.
Jacobsen: What about mental breakdowns in comedy rooms? Have you seen that—people burning out from overwork or personal issues?
Rosner: Not in comedy rooms directly. I have known people who had to step away, but not complete breakdowns. I did, however, see Michael Richards—Kramer from Seinfeld—implode twice. He is infamous for his 2000s meltdown at the Laugh Factory, where he shouted racial slurs at hecklers. However, decades earlier, in the mid-1980s, I saw him bomb at a comedy night in a bar where I worked.
He blanked on what to do next, grabbed a fire extinguisher, and meant to give a little squirt. Instead, it fully discharged. The club’s front was filled with chemical foam like a snowstorm. He apologized, climbed onto a table in the middle of the room, and finished his set while the audience huddled at the back. That was his first freakout I witnessed.
I have had one myself. In a semi-comedy context, I got so frustrated with a writing partner that I pushed him down and punched him.
Jacobsen: For the record, you have not punched me.
Rosner: No. We are about 1,200 miles apart. Moreover, since then, I have been on Toprol, an adrenaline blocker. I have not punched anyone since. Not that I was swinging wildly before—but the medication helps.
Rather than explosive breakdowns—throwing things, yelling—what is more common in comedy rooms is a quieter collapse: people stop producing. They get demoralized and quit contributing. That is the breakdown I have seen. But even that, not often.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/26
How will today’s crude recommendation algorithms evolve into AI-powered digital concierges that both empower and manipulate people, shaping future intelligence and autonomy?
Algorithms today are crude, often clumsy systems that drive ads, recommendations, and online shopping results. Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen explore how these imperfect tools—mocked for errors like selling washing machines after one purchase—are evolving into powerful AI-driven “digital concierges.” Such systems could provide personalized, helpful services, even aiding homeless individuals, but also pose risks of manipulation and surveillance, as dramatized in Minority Report. The dialogue contrasts current inefficiencies with looming sophistication, raising ethical questions about autonomy, critical thinking, and whether future generations will depend on technology like hermit crabs rely on fragile shells for protection.
Rick Rosner: Can we discuss the algorithm for a moment?
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What algorithm?
Rosner: The one people refer to when you’re on your phone, and it suddenly throws up articles related to something you were just talking about in the room—as if it had been listening. People say, “That’s the algorithm.” Or when you’re shopping online, it suggests related products. Or on Netflix, it recommends shows based on what you’ve watched. Everyone calls it “the algorithm.”
Jacobsen: You’re saying everyone calls it that. I’m not denying people use that term; I’m saying I never personally use it that way.
Rosner: Fair enough. In my house, we do. It’s sloppy usage, but let’s talk about it anyway. We know it’s pretty primitive. It makes a lot of dumb mistakes. Really, it’s not one algorithm, but many—one for each service you use.
People make fun of it. Buy one washing machine, and suddenly you get ads for five more washing machines, which makes no sense. We could discuss why it’s so bad and whether it will remain that way.
My favourite recent example: I like searching for bikinis online because the algorithm then serves me lots of pictures of women modelling bikinis. I never buy one, but I like getting those images as spam.
On platforms like AliExpress—similar to Temu, a Chinese e-commerce aggregator—manufacturers post products for global buyers. They flood it with bikinis, swimsuits, and yoga gear. Some of it carries sexually explicit slogans or symbols, like “BBC” (a pornography acronym) or a spade-symbol “Q” (which, in fetish contexts, signals “queen of spades”). “Spade” is also a racist slur, so these items have a disturbing subtext.
I don’t believe American women—or women anywhere—are flocking to buy yoga pants advertising “big black cock.” What likely happened is that the algorithm scraped pornography where women wore garments signalling that fetish. Those images then influenced product listings.
The algorithm seems to assume, “This is just everyday American women.” I doubt it even understands the symbols it pushes onto workout gear or bikinis. It simply scrapes symbols from images—probably from American porn—and mistakes them for retail opportunities.
I browse AliExpress and see what it offers. For example, I like Lego, so it shows me Lego knockoffs. Recently, Chinese manufacturers have even started copying micro-mosaics. It’s fun to watch these aggregators at work.
Back to the algorithm—it can be wildly wrong. One reason is that it costs almost nothing to serve ads. When you shop for something on eBay, the algorithm suggests, “You might also like this.” The cost is negligible, even if it only works under 10% of the time.
Sometimes eBay’s algorithm offers me a cheaper version of the exact item I’m already viewing—maybe 8% less from a different vendor. That undermines sellers because eBay is effectively undercutting them. One reason the algorithm is flawed is that expectations are low and the cost of mistakes is minimal.
The algorithm is also blamed for influencing the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Cambridge Analytica, a UK firm, was hired by the GOP and used Facebook data to divide voters into buckets—maybe six categories—and then targeted propaganda at each.
It was effective, maybe less because the buckets were bright and more because of the sheer volume of propaganda on Facebook. The algorithm that assigned people to buckets was primitive, but the saturation was overwhelming.
Jacobsen: The real question is when the algorithm gets less crude. What happens when we’re immersed in systems that truly know us and deliver sophisticated suggestions? Then you get “agents.” They could be deeply layered, capable of very targeted manipulation. Imagine a cyber-butler, cyber-girlfriend, or cyber-Jiminy Cricket on your shoulder—a digital concierge. It’s like a concierge company, but filtered through one butler just for you.
Rosner: Right. And I think you’re correct—it can take both helpful and insidious forms, often simultaneously. For example, I’ve had some training in what it takes to help homeless people. It requires concierge-level service because every homeless person’s situation is unique. You need a human contact who says, “What’s your deal? Here’s what we can do for you,” and then eases them into a less miserable existence.
A digital concierge for homeless people could be helpful. Imagine giving someone a tablet that says, “Hello, Jim. Here’s what’s available today: food here, showers here, housing applications here, medications here.” Jim might be mentally ill, have substance issues, or just be down on his luck. He might use the suggestions—or he might throw the tablet into traffic. But at sixty dollars a tablet, that’s far cheaper than Jim ending up in the ER eight times a year, which would cost the city sixty thousand dollars. It could be a relatively inexpensive attempt at concierge-level help.
For people who aren’t homeless, the same digital concierge would be both helpful and insidious. It would guide them, but also nudge them in the direction vendors want them to go. That’s already obvious and well-documented. The best-known fictional example is Minority Report.
Tom Cruise running through the subway station while personalized ads pop up, shouting his name. He’s trying to hide, but the system knows his identity and keeps calling him out.
That’s where algorithms are headed. They’ll improve significantly, very quickly, now that they’re AI-powered. But AI itself is still limited. The question is how quickly it will improve.
Jacobsen: Do you agree with Sam Altman’s general argument—that his kids and future generations will never be more intelligent than even today’s AI, such as GPT-5.5 and its successors? I set aside an editorial from this weekend’s LA Times. The headline sums it up: “The internet made us stupid. AI promises to make it worse.” Written by Christopher Cheschin.
Rosner: As AI use grows, researchers warn that the future of critical thinking doesn’t look good. You mentioned Sam Altman earlier—he said his kids will never be smarter than the AIs of the future. He framed it optimistically—as if that would be a good thing for them.
Jacobsen: Both Altman’s statement and that LA Times editorial point in the same direction. We’ve discussed before the process of domestication from wolves to dogs. Dogs are much less autonomous than coyotes or wolves. They surrendered some independence and critical skills to humans. Dogs don’t really know what’s going on—they rely on us for survival.
I don’t think Altman meant future kids will be stupid. He meant future AIs will be extremely smart. However, the editorial presents a darker argument: future children might be less intelligent, or at least less critical thinkers.
I see future kids more like hermit crabs. At one of the bars I worked, we had hermit crab races. Every week, I had to look after the crabs. They didn’t fare well in captivity—two or three died each week. Out of their shells, hermit crabs are weak, pathetic, and defenceless.
That’s how I picture future people. With technology—their “shell”—they’ll be formidable. Without it, stripped bare, they’ll be weak and helpless. However, it is rare for people to be separated from their technology.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/25
Did you see anything about Trump’s speech at the UN, or anything at the UN you want to talk about?
Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner parse Reuters-led headlines: Donald Trump’s UN speech clips, a halted escalator he spun into intrigue, and his late pivot backing Ukraine’s full territorial recovery. They note the Dallas ICE office shooting of detainees and tentative anti-ICE motive. Alex Jones faces no DOJ fishing after Ed Martin’s retracted letter. An unauthorized Trump–Jeffrey Epstein statue was removed. Trump targets “antifa” via executive order; senators press Match Group over Tinder scams. At the White House, a gaudy “walk of fame” features Joe Bidenreduced to an autopen jab—routine tech miscast as scandal. All sourced to Reuters today.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Quick Alien: Earth update.
Rick Rosner: Morrow and Hermit were in prison together in a cage setup. They got out, and then Morrow fought Kirsch. Kirsch bled the milky “android” fluid typical in sci-fi, but he was not dead and exaggerated his injuries. As of where I stopped, both were alive and likely back for season two. I checked Rotten Tomatoes. Critics’ scores are notably higher than those of the audience for this title. However, the exact percentages fluctuate by day and version (season, series, or episode), so I would avoid locking in numbers unless we cite the page at the time of publication.
Jacobsen: All the sources are from Reuters today. Did you see anything about Trump’s speech at the UN, or anything at the UN you want to talk about?
Rosner: I saw some clips—like when he said, “I am pretty great at stuff and you all are going to hell.” I do not know the context, but the fact that he would say something like that is, first, absurd, and second, everyone gives him a pass because it is Trump and he spouts crazy nonsense. What else should I know about his time at the UN? I know he does not like the UN. I know he does not respect it, and I am sure the feeling is mutual. We still have 40 months of this chaos agent who cares little for the American people or the nation and lives in a self-serving fever dream. Rotten Tomatoes. One good thing he did, though, was flip his stance on Ukraine and Russia. He is now saying Ukraine has a good chance of recovering all the territory stolen by Russia. Whether he will follow through on that by resuming aid to Ukraine—nobody knows. His opinion might not survive the week. However, it would be great if he resumed sending arms to Ukraine.
Jacobsen: A gunman opened fire on an ICE field office in Dallas, shooting three detainees, then died by suicide. One detainee was killed and two were critically injured, according to DHS.
Rosner: An unused bullet with “ANTI-ICE” written on it was recovered, which suggests an anti-ICE motive, though the investigation is ongoing. Some politicians framed it as an attack on ICE; it is too early to draw firm conclusions.
Jacobsen: Trump has called for the Secret Service to investigate an incident involving an escalator at the United Nations. Any thoughts?
Rosner: He is making a spectacle of it. The escalator did stop just as he stepped on, but UN officials say the likely cause was a safety trigger—possibly set off by his own videographer—rather than sabotage. Either way, it is not precisely a presidential-level crisis.
Jacobsen: A statue of Trump holding hands with Epstein was removed from the National Mall in Washington. Any thoughts?
Rosner: It was an unauthorized installation and got taken down quickly. Reports describe it as a life-size, bronze-painted piece by an anonymous collective—not a traditional cast bronze, which would have taken months and cost a small fortune. My central curiosity is the fabrication—how they managed to pull off something so significant, so quickly.
Jacobsen: Trump says he will sign an executive order to dismantle left-wing groups he claims are inciting violence. Any thoughts?
Rosner: He already signed an order targeting “antifa” as a terrorist organization this week. “Antifa” is not a single membership group; it is more an umbrella label or stance—anti-fascist—so treating it as a discrete organization is conceptually shaky and enforcement-wise tricky.
Jacobsen: The Justice Department has retracted an inquiry into the FBI agent who testified against Alex Jones. DOJ leadership told the official who sent that inquiry to rescind it. The agent had testified in the Sandy Hook defamation case; the DOJ walked back the letter. A U.S. Justice Department official on Wednesday retracted a demand for information from an FBI agent who testified against conspiracy theorist Alex Jones in a defamation case that resulted in a $1.5 billion verdict for spreading lies about the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. The request came days after Ed Martin, a senior Justice Department figure, sent a letter to the FBI agent’s lawyer seeking information on whether the agent received any financial benefit for participation in the case, part of a broader push to allege government “weaponization” against Trump and his supporters.
Rosner: Alex Jones is one of the top three worst right-wing pundits. He made the families of Sandy Hook victims miserable. They were harassed and threatened because he falsely claimed the massacre was staged. These families, already grieving the murder of their children, were targeted for more than a decade because of his lies. If Trump’s Justice Department is now attempting to undermine that case so Jones can avoid paying the $1.5 billion judgment—money largely scammed from people by selling worthless supplements—that is deeply corrupt. We have come to expect almost anything from this government, but this is shocking even by those standards. Jones harassed these families relentlessly, year after year, on his show. If this verdict is somehow reversed, they may have to try him again, but the judgment came more than two years ago, and Jones has still managed to hang on to much of his fortune. He should not be a billionaire on the backs of bereaved families.
Rosner: The White House trolled Biden with a portrait featuring his autopen signature. Any thoughts?
Jacobsen: Trump, while redecorating the White House in his typically gaudy style, has created a “walk of fame” of presidents, lining the hall with portraits in oversized gold frames of all 47 presidents. For Biden, instead of a portrait, Trump hung a facsimile of his autopen signature. This is intended as a jab, since some MAGA supporters claim Biden often did not know what he was signing and that staff used the autopen without his awareness. That is nonsense. For decades, presidents have used the autopen to handle routine paperwork. Trump himself used it. Biden has, too. The claim that Biden’s autopen use shows incompetence is just another baseless attack.
Jacobsen: Two U.S. senators have urged Tinder’s parent company, Match Group, to take more decisive action against dating scams. This follows reports of widespread fraud on dating apps, including high-profile cases such as the “Tinder Swindler,” who has faced allegations of fraud.
Rosner: I do not know much about the “Tinder Swindler.” I assume he does his swindling in real life, not just online.
Jacobsen: He uses the app. He lies through the app, meets his victims in person, and runs an elaborate fraud.
Rosner: So he romances someone—often a lonely person—out of a large amount of money?
Jacobsen: Families, individuals, yes.
Rosner: I do not know what more can be done to keep people safe from that kind of scam.
Jacobsen: If someone is a convincing actor… Yes, I remember. There was a documentary about it. He seemed unusually sophisticated.
Rosner: If there are known swindlers who have been investigated but not prosecuted—or prosecuted but released—then it makes sense for them to be flagged on Tinder. I am sure there are red flags people should be aware of. It does not seem unreasonable to make users more aware. It is not trivial to the victims, but it is also not the sort of political incompetence or overreach we have been discussing. Thank you.
Jacobsen: Okay, I will see you tomorrow.
Rosner: All right, see you then.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/24
What did Jimmy Kimmel’s return monologue actually change?
Scott Douglas Jacobsen interviews Rick Rosner on Jimmy Kimmel’s unusually long, sincere return monologue: conciliatory, not apologetic, and unlikely to sway entrenched audiences as legacy TV ratings slide. Rosner situates late night from Steve Allen to Carson to Kimmel and Stewart, noting faster modern news inputs. He then recaps Alien: Earth’s penultimate chaos: synths captured, Prodigy overwhelmed, and Boy Cavalier’s arrogant eye-midge gambit amid Weyland-Yutani’s assault, forecasting multi-season survival math. Touching mortality, they lament Robert Jarvik’s death and reflect on Parkinson’s familial risk, treatment horizons, and resilience. Through it all: speech, satire, and the First Amendment’s enduring guardrails still matter.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, tell me about Kimmel’s speech. We have to get back.
Rick Rosner: All right. I watched most of his monologue—the first 20 minutes. It was very long, longer than a standard monologue. It was good. It had funny moments, and moments where he was frank—really, it was sincere throughout.
He was conciliatory without being apologetic. It will change no one’s mind—or very few people’s. The people who like him will still like him. Those who dislike him for political reasons will continue to dislike him for the same reasons. He might gain a few more fans. Will they stick with him night after night? The ratings across network television suggest otherwise; all legacy shows are trending down as viewing habits shift. But he did a good job.
He always does—he and his team. While he was suspended, the story was big enough that a couple of reporters tracked me down. I didn’t talk to them then because I hadn’t worked for him in 11 years, and I didn’t want to wade into it. Today, after he was scheduled to return, a reporter who’d spoken with a couple of other former Kimmel writers contacted me. I agreed to talk anonymously and offered a couple of innocuous comments. The main one was that late-night talk shows have been on the air for 71 years, they’ve joked about 13 presidents, and only one president has actively tried to shut them down. And then…
Late night started on U.S. network TV in 1954, during the Eisenhower administration, with Tonight hosted by Steve Allen. Before that, Allen had done a local late-night show in New York starting in 1953. Did they do a monologue every night at first? I’m not sure, but by the time Johnny Carson took over in October 1962, the structure was well-established: an opening monologue, a house band, interviews with guests, and often a stand-up performance.
That basic format lasted for decades. Letterman began to experiment with it, and Kimmel and Jon Stewart later further developed it—especially with tightly edited clip montages that showcased public figures’ contradictions. Back in Carson’s era, source material was primarily newspapers and the AP teletype—a networked typewriter that spit out Associated Press bulletins all day—so the raw inputs were slower and fewer than the firehose later shows could mine. The Tonight Show launched nationally in 1954. For roughly a year before that, Allen’s late-night program was local to New York.
Eisenhower served from 1953 to 1961, so the early Tonight years overlapped with his presidency; they indeed joked about him, including his love of golf—he played a lot.
And I don’t know what more the jokes would have been, because I’m not familiar with what Eisenhower’s foibles were in that time period. However, he and every subsequent president were often joked about. The reporter asked me, “What do you think of Kimmel being at the center of all this?” And I said, “He’s not the one dividing us.
The president is the one dividing us.” He didn’t use that comment. But Jimmy Kimmel put himself in perspective during tonight’s monologue, saying he’s got a little show. It’s not the most important thing. The most important thing is the First Amendment and the freedom for shows like his to say what they want without threats of being taken off the air. Now, some commentators have said he didn’t apologize, but he did, in a sense. He said he didn’t want anyone to think he was making light of the murder of a young man. He had kind words and praise for Erica Kirk. So, there you go.
Jacobsen: What about Alien: Earth?
Rosner: So, I started to watch the final episode. I’m 12 minutes into episode eight, the final episode. We didn’t talk yesterday because my mic wasn’t working. But I also saw the end of episode seven last night, where Hermit, the human, takes two of the synths. He’s trying to get them to a boat so they can escape the island. When they reach it, they’re confronted by a group of Prodigy soldiers, including some Hermit had worked with before. There was a confrontation, and Nibs, the red-haired synth, got shot a couple of times, but it didn’t hurt her much because she’s a synth. She fought back and injured someone badly, but then she was tased, which shut her down long enough for the human brother and the remaining synths—five of them in total—to be captured. Weyland-Yutani is attacking the island.
They’ve cut all communication with the outside world. Prodigy, which owns the island, is losing soldiers, mainly to the xenomorphs. Conditions are deteriorating. Boy Cavalier is in his office with a containment chamber holding the sheep with the eye-midge parasite. Boy Cavalier has been told by Kirsch to get his act together, given the danger they’re all in. But Boy Cavalier is being arrogant and is considering letting the eye midge transfer into a human host, because he wants to communicate with it. That’s obviously a terrible idea.
But if people didn’t do stupid things, you wouldn’t have the Alien movies. The aliens—just as in the films—are incredibly dangerous. They could kill everyone anyway, but in all the Alien stories, people make critical mistakes that cost them their lives, often through greed. Boy Cavalier is driven by arrogance. I don’t know if he’ll survive. He has to make it through the next 35 minutes of the show to see if he makes it into the second season.
They might keep him alive because the show is designed to last multiple seasons. As I’ve said, when you sell a TV series, executives want to know what five years of story arc would look like—not in detail, but generally. So more humans and synths will survive this series than in the Alien films, where almost everyone is wiped out because this isn’t the end. It’s clearly popular, and I’m sure it’ll get renewed, though it looks costly. Reportedly, this was the most significant production ever shot in Thailand, with 15 or 16 sound stages operating simultaneously.
Jacobsen: Have you seen the fake plant?
Rosner: Not yet, no. I
Jacobsen: I look ahead.
Rosner: So there’s this thing—is that the dangling watermelon, or is that something different?
Jacobsen: Yeah.
Rosner: So the dangling watermelon is a vegetable and not an animal? Is that the deal? Or maybe it’s one fake and one real, honestly.
Jacobsen: You know who died from Parkinson’s this year?
Rosner: No.
Jacobsen: Robert Jarvik.
Rosner: That’s sad. That’s Marilyn’s husband.
Jacobsen: I saw it in an interview. He was shaking a few years ago, and I thought, “Yeah.”
Rosner: He wasn’t that old either.
Jacobsen: Seventy-nine.
Rosner: That’s not old for now.
Jacobsen: About average for an American man. A little older, actually.
Rosner: Yeah, yeah. But he was a doctor with resources. My dad had Parkinson’s. My grandpa had Parkinson’s. But it was a late onset for both. I don’t think it killed my grandpa, who lived to 96 and a half. It certainly affected my dad in his last few years, but I don’t know that it killed him. Anyway, I might consider that in the future, but if it’s a late-onset condition and I make it to my 80s—that’s another 15 years—they might have good treatments by then. I’m not particularly worried about Parkinson’s. I’m more concerned about other things. Anyway, my condolences to Marilyn vos Savant.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishingcontent—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/23
Can mid-tier spectacle still sing when character inevitability carries the load?
Scott Douglas Jacobsen asks for an update; Rick Rosner toggles from an OCD-shirt gym chat and a teen’s hair-tic echoing an Emmy winner to Alien: Earth’s mid-episode beats: Wendy/Marcy protests Nibs’s memory wipe, Hermit consults a fired scientist, and an insect-fed death nears discovery in real time. Rosner thinks machine-eating insects signal attrition without erasing the core cast. He rates the series 8–8.5 and contrasts spectacle with craft: Elmore Leonard’s inevitable, unsensational collisions versus Fast & Furious physics. Regretting not greeting Elmore Leonard (and passing on Harlan Ellison), he skewers clichés, praises fairer game-show mechanics, and warns perfectionism smothers output.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What is up with your highly accurate shirt, by the way?
Rick Rosner: I am wearing my OCD shirt—it says “I don’t have OCD” six times, which is the joke. Also, I do have OCD. A 15-year-old kid at the gym said he liked my shirt. I said, Yes, and I do have OCD. He replied, “Well, I have got the combination of doom. I have got autism, ADHD, and anxiety.”
There is a school a couple of blocks from where we live for kids on the spectrum and with other conditions. Anyway, we had a conversation, but it was awkward: a teenager with autism and an adult on the spectrum with OCD. The kid kept tugging at his hair—putting his hand in it as a nervous tic.
Coincidentally, the Emmys were on tonight, and a 15-year-old kid won an Emmy for a performance in a show called Adolescence. Is that the youngest Emmy winner ever? Maybe. The Emmys have been going for 70 years, so someone younger has won before. But anyway, this kid had the same hair-touching tic. That coincidence was interesting.
All right, back to Alien Earth. I watched a little more. Wendy/Marcy is giving the scientist lady a hard time for erasing part of Nibs’s memory, because Nibs was freaking out. You cannot have them freaking out—they are super powerful and could kill humans.
Then Hermit, Marcy’s brother, is talking to the scientist who got fired and is on his way out. Hermit asks whether his sister is safe there, and the scientist shows him how safe everyone is by pulling up their vitals. They are just seconds away from discovering that one of the kids has been eaten by the insects when I paused the video.
I assume the scientist will go in to try to save him and will himself get eaten by the insects.
Jacobsen: What do you think the insects being able to eat machines—or “tinnies”—says about the future?
Rosner: The future of the show? The season still has a lot of ground to cover. More characters have to be killed, but enough must survive to carry the series forward. This is only episode six, so there is room for both mass casualties and continuity. Unlike Aliens—the sequel to Alien—which only brought back Sigourney Weaver’s Ripley, this series needs a core group of survivors.
They can lose half the cast, but that will probably happen in the final two hours of the season.
I have been calling the show an eight, maybe an eight and a half, though I am not watching it fairly. I would need to sit down and watch for an hour at a time instead of in ten-minute chunks. There is also a limit to how good a story like this can be.
Take Elmore Leonard. He wrote around 80 books over a career of fifty years or more. His writing was always economical. He never wrote longer than necessary, and he followed the rule of avoiding unnecessary adjectives and adverbs. He did not pad scenes. In his later years, especially, his confrontations were stripped down—no excessive elaboration.
I once saw him at a book signing in Encino. The store was nearly empty—it was just him, me, my wife, and a couple of clerks. I did not buy a book or go up to talk to him. I should have. I was an asshole for not taking the opportunity to meet Elmore Leonard while he sat there alone.
I also saw Harlan Ellison once at a Mongolian barbecue place in Sherman Oaks, eating with his wife. I did not approach him either, but that made more sense—Ellison had a reputation for being mean, and interrupting his dinner would probably not have ended well. Still, it adds to my history of being timid around authors.
Leonard’s style was about inevitability. He put characters on a collision course because they wanted different things and only one could prevail. But the confrontations were never spectacular. Someone pulled a gun and fired a shot or two. Sometimes it was as simple as a loosened railing on a stilt house overlooking a hundred-foot drop: a character leaned on it, the railing gave way, and that was it.
Compare that with something like Fast & Furious. There are ten of those movies now, and every confrontation is an overblown shootout, car chase, or explosion. Leonard’s genius was in making violence inevitable but unsensational.
The physics and stunts in Fast & Furious continue to become more elaborate. In one of the later films—six or so—they drive a car from one skyscraper to another. They get a running start, jump a hundred or more feet, and crash into the next tower because it is their only means of escape. It is entirely ridiculous. Maybe the physics could be simulated to show it is barely possible, but the odds of pulling it off in real life are one in a million.
In Elmore Leonard’s stories, by contrast, nothing is elaborate. Two people dislike each other; one pulls a gun and shoots. Sometimes both are armed, but it is never flashy. Leonard had thought carefully about how people work and how violence unfolds, and he wrote it simply, without unnecessary embellishment.
That is the difference. Fast & Furious delivers spectacle—amazing, computer-generated stunts that may not make complete sense, but fit seamlessly into the plot. Leonard, on the other hand, was one of the greatest crime writers, and early on, he also wrote Westerns. He focused on character, motive, and inevitable collisions between people. The result is more satisfying, even if it lacks the spectacle.
The Alien TV series falls somewhere in between. It is constrained by its world. It must deliver people versus horrific aliens, with cyborgs and synthetics mixed in, while keeping the plot moving and production on schedule. That constraint limits how “perfectly awesome” it can be, but it also forces focus.
Certain clichés always crop up. “Chop chop” drives me crazy whenever I hear it—a lazy way of saying “hurry up.” Or vomiting as shorthand for emotion: a character is so overwhelmed that they puke. Lately, it has also been overused for comedy. Then there is the inevitable line in chase scenes: two people in a car, one driving, the other looking behind them. “We have got company.” It is a cliché, yes, but it is efficient. You could say, “We are being followed,” or “I think someone is following us,” but those are clunkier. In real life, someone might very well say the cliché because it works.
You cannot avoid situations that you have already seen a million times in movies and television when you are writing. Carole started watching a made-for-TV movie called The Wrong Paris, a rom-com built around a dating reality show.
It had all the usual dating reality show scenarios, the kind you have seen countless times before, so they were inevitably a little lame. But at least the writers and producers had thought about the dynamics well enough that the movie did not completely suck.
They even improved upon real reality shows. Usually, on a dating or competition show, only the last winner gets anything—the partner, the money, whatever the prize is. And the batting averages are terrible; most of the couples split up within six months. On other shows like Wipeout, two dozen people compete, put their bodies at risk, sometimes getting seriously hurt, but only the ultimate winner walks away with money.
This movie tried a different system. Contestants earned money for lasting longer—say, five thousand dollars for surviving a week. That was necessary for the plot, but it was also fairer than real shows. In its own way, it was bright and somewhat satisfying. However, it was still unappealing, as it was a rom-com based on a reality dating show.
And that is the truth: everything you create will be lame to some degree, because it has to be about something, and all subject matter is inherently limited. You also have to work with limited resources and limited time. I have been writing a book for forty years and never published it. It could have been the most awesome thing in the world. Still, my paralysis, for the sake of “awesomeness,” has kept me from writing ten other books that might not have been perfect, but still could have been good.
So Alien Earth is not “good” in an absolute sense, but it is good considering what can reasonably be expected. You cannot expect everything to be excellent. Sometimes you get lucky. Alien in 1979 was undeniably impressive, just as Star Wars was in 1977. They had new technology to make science fiction look real, great production teams, and in George Lucas’s case, a kind of genius—not in dialogue or plotting, but in making an exciting science fiction spectacle.
These were the first of their kind that we got to see. They had the awesomeness of breaking new ground, which made for a fantastic movie. But that was serendipity—something you cannot expect from every entertainment product you consume. Not everything can open up a whole new genre.
So there you go.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/23
Do symbolic votes, culture-war theatrics, and sci-fi horror rhyme more than we admit?
In this round, Scott Douglas Jacobsen cues Rick Rosner on the UN’s two-state vote, while Benjamin Netanyahu’s incentive to prolong war looms. Rosner retracts earlier Poland-drone speculation, then parses reaction to the murder of Charlie Kirk, alongside Jacobsen’s deadpan “heaven” satire. Protesters target Elon Musk’s Tesla Drive-In; the FBI director’s New York dinner irks critics. Rosner places small bets on Donald Trump’s approval and notes shooter Tyler Robinson’s standout ACT before an IHOP “memorial” meal. Back in Alien: Earth, acid-spitting flies that feed on electronics liquefy a synthetic, a mind-controlled sheep stalks, and containment failures mount.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Gaza—the UN resolution. Reuters reported that the United Nations General Assembly on Friday overwhelmingly voted to endorse a declaration outlining “tangible and irreversible steps” for a two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians.
It was a seven-page declaration, the result of an international conference of the UN in July hosted by Saudi Arabia and France on the decades-long conflict. The United States and Israel boycotted the event. The final vote result was 142 in favour, 10 against, and 12 abstentions. That is only 164, while there are 193 member states in the UN General Assembly.
Very importantly, all Gulf Arab states supported it. Israel and the United States voted against it, along with Argentina, Hungary, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, and Tonga. In other words, most of the nations with a direct invested interest voted in favour of a two-state solution. They also condemned Hamas at the same time.
Rick Rosner: All right, well, that is good, but the UN has no teeth. They have had dozens of votes like this over the past 40 years, condemning Israel, with the U.S. refusing to do so. This will not affect Israel’s behaviour at all.
Israel is led by Netanyahu, a figure similar to Trump. His cabinet is aligned with the worst right-wing elements of Israeli politics. He needs to stay in office to delay his prosecution for corruption. He has been on trial for years. The trials are ongoing even as he serves as prime minister. He will keep the war going as long as possible, so that by the time a sentence is handed down and the appeals exhausted, he will be 79 or 80 and effectively beyond accountability.
Netanyahu’s strategy is to claim in Court that he is too old to go to prison. That is his plan. Israel is loathed by its enemies in the Middle East and would be regardless of its behaviour. So Israel is going to keep on doing what it is doing.
A sizable minority of Israeli citizens hate Netanyahu and hate the war, but grudgingly support him as leader while the war is going on. So things are going to keep happening the way they have been happening.
It started with Hamas slaughtering 1,200 Israelis on October 7, 2023. We are now less than a month away from the second anniversary of Israel’s invasion, with more than 100,000 troops sent in. Israel has 300,000 soldiers available. They are not going to put all of them in Gaza, but that is the scale of what they can call up.
Hamas initially had around 30,000 fighters—it is difficult to determine the exact number. At least 10,000, maybe 15,000 to 20,000, have been killed, along with some 40,000 other Gazans. But Hamas’s numbers have been replenished. It might still have as many as 20,000 fighters. That is not nothing, but it is not a force that requires two years to “mop up.” Israel claims the war continues primarily because of the hostages.
At this point, there are roughly 50 hostages held by Hamas. The last time I looked, 20 were thought to still be alive. Israel claims that each side is interested in continuing the conflict. Hamas will keep fighting—they know they will be obliterated if they ever release the hostages. Netanyahu, as I said, wants to keep fighting to stay out of prison.
It is a deplorable situation. Jews around the world, I think, mostly hate what Israel is doing because it contributes to antisemitism and reduces Israel’s standing as a bastion of Jewish liberty.
Jacobsen: Comments?
Rosner: At this time, no. What I am asking is: are my opinions reasonable?
Jacobsen: Your opinions are opinions. For the most part, they are reasonable. I always run it through a fact check.
Rosner: Okay, but a bit ago, I said some stupid things about the drones, the Russian drones flying over Poland. I offered some possible explanations that, on second thought, were stupid. If I were conspiracy-minded, I might have suggested that…
I suggested, stupidly, that the Russian drones over Poland might have been a false flag from Ukraine—even though I did not believe it. That was a dumb thing to say. Any suggestion that it was an accident was also dumb, once I read more. It involved 19 drones, some of them flying deep into Poland.
That was absolutely intentional. You cannot be sure precisely what Russia intended. Still, they certainly meant, among other things, to provoke Poland and thumb their nose at NATO. I felt bad about saying stupid things. I always feel a little bad, though. If I stopped myself from saying silly things, we would have 40% less content.
Jacobsen: Anything new on Kirk?
Rosner: No, it is more of the same.
The right keeps wanting to blame the left. You have to be careful. I can tiptoe right up to saying that Charlie Kirk was not the best guy without getting hit with a storm of backlash. And my little semi-jokes are bleak enough.
People did not know whether to get pissed at me or not. Stephen King had to apologize because he said that Charlie Kirk was in favour of stoning gays to death, Bible style. Then it turned out Kirk was quoting the Bible without explicitly endorsing it in that instance.
Stephen King had to retract the tweet. I said, stupidly and obliquely, that Charlie Kirk absolutely did not advocate stoning gays—but he did sell t-shirts for $39.95. Then I linked to his line of t-shirts. That is a lot for a t-shirt. But people either did not see the tweet or did not know whether to be offended. So I can do that kind of thing without getting in trouble. I also said that I deplore his murder, that it was tragic for his family and terrible for America.
And that it did not give him time to become a better man. The money rolled in—he had a net worth of $12 million—and he did not have time to change. Nobody really went after me for that. Saying he could have turned into a better man implies he was not the best possible man. I get about 500 views for things like that, which is fine.
I could pay Elon Musk $8 a month and increase my reach by a thousand percent. But then I would be giving Musk money, and his tweets have been getting more racist. So why fund that? It could also get me into more trouble.
Carole and I went to an art gallery opening in Hollywood, which turned out to be right across the street from the Tesla Drive-In. It is Elon Musk’s restaurant, or one of several. From the outside, it resembles a spaceship—round and covered with cladding. On adjacent buildings, they project entire movies onto screens, measuring approximately 30 by 30 feet. The movies are super noisy because they are open-air.
There are protesters out there every day. They make noise, they have inflatable figures waving their arms like car lot mascots, and a couple of giant blow-up Musk figures rigged so that the air pressure makes them give a Nazi salute over and over. There is also a man walking around in a small cardboard Tesla truck labelled “Auschwitz Mobile” or something similar. A dozen or more protesters are out there making noise, and cars honk in support.
Across the street, there is a gigantic apartment building, at least eight stories tall, with probably 250 units. The people who live there—who lived there before Musk built this thing—have to deal with the constant noise. They are pissed. Musk is a crazy weirdo.
Jacobsen: What else? The head of the FBI took time out from being at the crime scene to have dinner at a hard-to-get-into restaurant in New York City, roughly 1,900 miles away from the crime scene. And they did not catch anybody, because the shooter was turned in by his dad and maybe also his roommate.
Rosner: So, things are as they have been, except the temperature has been turned up. I have a small betting account where I discovered that the odds they are offering for Trump’s popularity on October 1—17 days from now—are pretty favourable. I can afford to buy the spread. You can estimate the percentile on Nate Silver’s site where Trump’s approval will fall.
I covered 43% and 44%, and today I spent another dollar to cover 45% in case this whole assassination attempt boosts Trump’s popularity. What else? One of the pictures of the shooter from before he became known as “the shooter” shows him as an innovative individual. He scored 34 out of 36 on the ACT. A 34 is especially impressive coming out of rural Utah, where you don’t pay for an expensive prep course—you just go in and take it cold. On the first try, that is a strong score. So he was a smart guy.
There is a picture of him in a diner with a plate of pancakes, eggs, and bacon. In honour of that, Carole and I went to IHOP for a Charlie Kirk memorial meal. I got the all-you-can-eat pancakes because they looked good in the picture. It is what Charlie would have wanted.
Jacobsen: Back to Alien Earth.
Rosner: I watched a little more. One of the synthetic kids got killed. You talked about the flies—you mentioned them. We saw them for the first time. A little disappointing, because they are just big flies, about six inches, and all they do is blow acid in your face, dissolve it, and then suck your juices out.
They made a point of showing that the guy who got killed was feeding them. They established that the flies eat a lot of inorganic matter. So even though the victim was synthetic, the flies could get nutrition from him.
The sheep is the one who ambushed them. The sheep has the eye-midge—the eye-octopus—in one of its eye sockets, controlling it. They do a lot of shots of the sheep looking at what is going on, being more intelligent than a sheep.
The guy is feeding all the animals—all the alien species—and the little tray door on the containment unit for the flies jams. He accidentally breaks it trying to open it, so he has to go in there with the tray of nutrients—whatever the flies eat.
He keeps the door wedged open with his foot, but then the sheep slams into the glass and startles him. He pulls his foot away—because he is a stupid kid—and he gets locked in the containment unit with the flies. They dissolve his face and eat his brain. That is how it played out.
It was more of the same, but you already have a creature with acid for blood.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/23
Are Alien’s new terrors about technology replacing us—or just mirrors for today’s politics?
In episode six, Scott Douglas Jacobsen hears Rick Rosner’s mid-watch recap: Slightly is blackmailed by Morrow to lure Hermit into a facehugger trap as Prodigy braces for Weyland-Yutani. Rosner pivots to the shooting of Charlie Kirk, noting online grief-policing and Jacobsen’s satirical “heaven press release.” He contrasts 1979’s eroticized Alien—phallic menace, vulval eggs, Sigourney Weaver’s empowered Ripley—with the series’ new dread: technological displacement by synthetics and erased sexuality, including trauma edits of a red-haired child. He flags bomb threats shutting campuses, including HBCUs, and a West Point scare, while observing the right’s rush to scapegoat colleges and broader political anxieties.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What happened in episode six of Alien Earth?
Rick Rosner: I am about halfway through it. Slightly, one of the kids whose brain was transferred into a synthetic body, is being blackmailed by Morrow, and he is trying to get Hermit—
So, slightly, the kid whose brain was transferred into a synthetic body is being blackmailed by Moro, who wants him to get Hermit to stand next to a xenomorph egg and be attacked by a facehugger. Hermit, being an adult, responds that it is bizarre for a child to ask him to do this.
Hermit is part of a team of medical commandos. He is less combat-trained than his surviving teammates. Still, they are medics who go into dangerous situations to save lives. He is called away to patrol with the others because Prodigy Corporation suspects that Weyland-Yutani will come for the aliens Prodigy has been holding on the island. They talk about how they fear the aliens themselves more than any human threat. That is where I paused the episode.
Jacobsen: Any updated thoughts on Robinson?
Rosner: The shooter, Tyler Robinson, was academically capable. A video shows him receiving a scholarship offer to Utah State University worth about $32,000 over four years. That makes him the type of person who can unravel catastrophically. Think Ted Kaczynski: brilliant but warped. Yet the pictures of him circulating do not suggest instability—he looks normal, even wholesome. One photo shows him in a diner, eating pancakes topped with sunny-side-up eggs and sausages. Ironically, that just made me hungry. Carole and I are going to IHOP, and I might try the all-you-can-eat pancakes. Some “good” has come out of this, but I say that jokingly.
There has been fierce debate online about joking in this context. People are attempting to cancel anyone who appears to celebrate Charlie Kirk’s death. I have not done that. There is an important distinction: you can strongly disagree with Kirk’s rhetoric and public commentary without dancing on the grave of someone murdered. There was also debate about whether he went to heaven.
Some said he certainly did not. Others shot back, “You cannot know that, and you are cruel for saying so.” That argument unfolded online in real time.
Let me finish up here. So, I responded to the argument over whether Charlie Kirk is in heaven with a parody press release “from heaven.”
Rosner: You published a fake press release of Charlie Kirk in heaven on Twitter?
Jacobsen: I published a tweet that acted as a press release, saying that, yes, Charlie Kirk has officially been admitted to heaven, but was only awarded a “residence fourth class,” which is 12 square meters with a 400-millimetre porthole, an in-room sink but no shower, and seating at the 5:30 buffet.
Rosner: That is not an unfair joke.
Jacobsen: Right. I do not feel it is celebrating. What would you call it, though?
Rosner: Anyway, so, they are making fun of me again. Let us get back to Alien. The initial Alien movie came out in 1979, though production began around 1976. The film is rich in sexual themes. The egg was designed to resemble the opening of a vulva. Initially, it was depicted with two lips, but the designers thought it looked too much like “two vulvas,” so they altered it into a four-leaf design. Still, it looks unmistakably sexual.
The alien’s head has phallic features, and the horror is bound up in penetration—from the facehugger implanting embryos, to the chestburster’s violent emergence, to the secondary jaws.
Culturally, this was toward the end of the disco era. The United States was experiencing a herpes epidemic and other rising STDs. After half a decade of sexual liberation, there was also a growing awareness of its darker side. At the same time, feminist critiques were highlighting how “rapey” American culture was. Against this backdrop, Alien embodied anxieties about sex, control, and violation.
They cast Sigourney Weaver—nearly six feet tall—as a commanding, physically powerful woman who only grows stronger when she straps into the exoskeletal loader. That choice emphasized the interplay of sexual horror and gender dynamics.
By contrast, the current Alien series reflects different cultural anxieties. Instead of sexual dread, it emphasizes humanity’s inferiority. Humans appear weak, fleshy, and vulnerable compared to various artificial beings: Moro, who retains a human brain in a cybernetic body; Kirsch, whose brain and body are both robotic; and the children whose minds are implanted into adult synthetic bodies.
The aliens, importantly, do not reproduce through facehuggers with inorganic beings. Thus, the newer narratives shift the horror from sexual violation to technological displacement—mirroring today’s fears of being supplanted by AI and advanced robotics.
All the sex is stripped out. For one thing, the six kids might have adult-looking bodies, but their brains are still those of 10- to 12-year-olds. So the idea of sex has been taken away, except for one—the red-haired girl. Faced with trauma, she was attacked by the eye monster. The eye monster starts claiming, impossibly, because she is in a synthetic body, that she is pregnant. This seems like a callback to the original Alien, which had themes of impregnation. They have to shut her down and erase the trauma from her brain.
So she forgets that she had the encounter with the eye creature. She forgets that she claimed she was pregnant. There is an erasing of sexuality in this version of Alien and a replacement with anxiety about being the inferior species.
Also, a bunch of schools got shut down for bomb threats, including five HBCUs. All it takes is a phone call to shut down a college. There was also an incident at West Point Military Academy where a call about a threat may have led to actual gunplay. The right is trying to blame the college for radicalizing the shooter, even though he had little college experience. They are just trying to mess with them.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/23
Will myth, math, and machines decide whether we climb or calcify?
In this exchange, Scott Douglas Jacobsen relays Gareth Rees‘s prompts as Rick Rosner riffs on America’s ‘Real Jesus’—a muscular, punitive avatar for zero-sum politics—contrasting the gentler ‘Old Jesus.’ Rosner pegs the odds of alien rescue near zero: vast distances, dust hazards, and von Neumann probes beat hero landings. Inequality persists, he says, yet ‘computism’ may raise living standards while entrenching elites. The next century’s power centers: massive AIs and humans aligned with them, where distillation-driven systems like DeepSeek suggest leaner intelligence. He imagines cooperative, solar-fed abundance over AI wars. The near future’s vibe? More drones, AR bubbles, same messy humanity.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, I talked to a guy recently—actually, a few people—who were very curious about metaphysics. It’s not something that really interests me much. I’m not especially fond of metaphysics.
I told them you’ve had an interest in bringing metaphysics and physics a little closer together, but only in a technical and restricted way. For me, I’d need a little more “sauce” before I’d care much about theology, metaphysics, or proposed gods, while never closed to them.
At one point, I asked one of them if he had any questions.
These are from Gareth Rees. First one: Any comments on the Jesus mania that seems to be trending?
Rick Rosner: So, is Gareth in America? The new form of Jesus trending in America is a mean, rugged Jesus.
In a book I’m writing about the near future—a novel—I have “Old Jesus.” This is the kind of Jesus, the one who holds lambs. And then the Jesus embraced by the MAGA-style evangelicals in my book comes to be called “Real Jesus.”
Real Jesus doesn’t have long hair. He’s got a buzz cut, a fade. Honest Jesus is in favour of using force wherever force is “indicated.” And of course, to the Real Jesus guys, force is always indicated.
Both Old Jesus and Real Jesus are ripped. They were carpenters. Even when Old Jesus gets up on the cross, he often has abs, pecs and biceps. But Real Jesus is really ripped. He’s not afraid to unholster any number of guns.
But he doesn’t need guns—he’s got these kinds of firearms. He won’t turn the other cheek; he’ll turn your cheek with a punch.
So that’s the American version of Jesus. It’s not very well tied to the Jesus we grew up with, the one who was just a lovely guy.
This Jesus, the Real Jesus of the evangelicals, reflects the idea that the world isn’t a nice place but a zero-sum place—where if you’re not ready to get tough, people worse than you are going to take what’s yours. Honest Jesus is an a-hole. He doesn’t believe in abundance.
And he’s a reflection of something I’ve talked about a bunch: 50 years ago, conservative think tanks started herding idiots—because idiots are easier to herd. We’re living with the consequences of 50 years of Republicans appealing to schmucks. And this version of Jesus is a schmucky-ass Jesus.
So that’s my comment—or set of comments.
Jacobsen: His second question was, “Is there a non-zero probability of ETs rescuing Earth and its inhabitants?” He put in parentheses, “Clinging to hope here.”
Rosner: I highly doubt it, because of the distances between stars and the relative rarity of civilizations.
So, let’s say a hundred billion stars in our galaxy. The odds of there being an advanced civilization existing at the same time we do? One in a billion. That’d mean there are roughly a hundred advanced civilizations in the Milky Way.
Which means—if it’s one in a billion—you’d need to explore a radius of about a thousand stars to cover a billion. That’s a sphere extending maybe four thousand light-years.
And you can’t even travel at 10% of the speed of light, because the faster you travel, the more interstellar dust becomes deadly. One speck could blow you up. So any civilization trying to explore like that would be talking about sending von Neumann probes that could take 40,000 years to fill out that sphere. But why bother when you can stay home and simulate any civilization you want with your advanced tech?
There’s also the possibility they don’t want to announce themselves, because any other civilization might wipe them out.
So no—I think there’s very little chance we’ve been visited by aliens, or that they’d be particularly concerned with us. I do think they’re out there. I don’t think they’ve come here.
Now, maybe there’s some kind of “club” near the center of the galaxy—where computation is more straightforward, where more exotic physics might be possible. Maybe civilizations that pass the test of being able to send probes to the galactic center are welcomed into a billion-year-old club.
But the galactic center is around 100,000 light-years away. Even if you could manage it, you’re looking at a million years of travel.
So yeah—I don’t think there’s much help coming from elsewhere.
Jacobsen: Last question. He also asks, “What do you think of the possibility that the world economy doesn’t recover from its current trend, and we end up with exacerbated socioeconomic classes? (Poor get poorer, rich get richer, middle class gone.)”
Rosner: I mean, that’s what’s been going on in the U.S. The U.S. is an extreme case, but similar trends are also occurring around the world.
In the medium run, I believe computism replaces capitalism and communism—that is, the economics of computing becomes a bigger and bigger part of the world economy. And that distorts everything.
It leads to abundance. It makes a lot of stuff that humans like cheaper. But it could also lead to a two-tiered idiocracy, where you’ve got a minimum basic income for all. Suppose you want to strive and enter the competitive economy. In that case, you can do that—you can get schooled, get networked, and rise above the minimum basic.
There’s also the chance that AI gloms onto everything and leaves humans existing in the cracks, kind of like rats in the bilge of an old-timey ship. That shouldn’t happen. In the jungle of new ways of existing, humans will generally move toward augmenting themselves to live in a much faster-thinking world. I don’t know—will rich people own everything in the future? That’s what I’m watching.
We’re together, discussing Alien: Earth, the TV series based on Alien, which takes place 95 years from now. In it, Earth is owned by basically five rich people. It’s all divided among these five corporations. Everybody’s got a minimum level of subsistence. Things aren’t terrible, but there is an extreme disparity between the very richest and everybody else.
So I guess I’ll say yes—the disparities are going to continue. But the quality of life for the non-rich will keep improving as tech makes things cheaper in the near to mid-future—that is, over the next 50 to 80 years.
Jacobsen: I have a question separate from that entirely. What will be not only the most dominant, but also the most effective single type or class of intelligence in the next 100 years? This is a little bit more nuanced than just “computers, hybrids, or human beings.”
Rosner: That’s really several questions. One question is: Who will rule the world? That would be massive intelligences and those aligned with them. So, people are working with AI. Lucky individuals who end up in positions like those of Elon Musk—and then add AI to their capabilities—will be hard to displace from their vast wealth and power.
The entities that succeed in gaining more power will be those with the most fortunate individuals and entities who possess the most advanced technology.
I don’t know how much more powerful an AI is because it has more servers. If your server farm has 30,000 servers, assuming they’re all the same size, is that necessarily a smarter AI than one with only 4,000? I don’t know.
There’s a lot of debate in the AI world about how much compute really matters, versus whether more compact versions of AI can be built—ones that can generate new ideas without needing such a massive training set.
Jacobsen: They had a thing with DeepSeek where the reason it was so effective was because they used a system process called distillation. So the bigger model was able to make it more efficient, information-wise, so it could get 10x or 100x efficiency for the same output. It separated the wheat from the chaff; however, that system did that. That’s one aspect of the discussion. We don’t know whether AIs are going to cooperate or compete. We don’t know if they’re going to go to war with each other.
Rosner: In my stupid book about the future, my character is trying to convince AIs not to go to war with each other—preaching abundance, that the resources AIs need can be better obtained by working together to improve the world’s energy infrastructure. That structure is not infinitely, but massively improvable for the next bunch of centuries. You don’t really run into insurmountable bottlenecks until you’ve exhausted the resources of the near solar system.
You’ve got the sun, which provides as much energy as you’d need for thousands of years. If we can capture the sun’s output, that’s enough for all the AIs in the world for thousands of years to come. You need to build the infrastructure to grab it.
But there will be bad actors trying to grab power and resources. I want the coming AI-ocracy to team up to be vigilant against AI chaos agents. The people and other entities in charge will be the primary interpreters of big data. These entities have access to a vast amount of information and the computing power to extract new insights from that enormous amount of information.
All right, an addendum: The world will continue to look like the world. I think a team of art directors could effectively envision different versions of what the world might look like over the next 50 years—more gadgets, but also all the old stuff. People will still need to eat, and there will still be restaurants.
You see versions of the future like this, where it’s the present world, just more cluttered: floating signage, a bunch of flying junk. They’re even discussing the possibility of using air taxis—essentially giant drones—to transport people around during the Olympics.
To me, that sounds like horse shit. We haven’t even seen a prototype, and we’re less than three years away. Someone may try, but the skies won’t be filled with them. The logistics are just too challenging.
That said, the air will likely be filled with more drones than we have now. Any sci-fi rendering of the future shows clutter in the air. Plus, people are doing the same stuff they’ve always done, though less of the old and more of the new. Less physical intimacy, more being hooked up to information delivery crap strapped to your body.
People walking around in their AR bubbles—not literal bubbles, but waving their hands around, like in the intro to Minority Report. We’ve already seen what the future kind of looks like. Different parts of it have been imagined by people already.
The future, at least for the next few decades, is not impossible to picture.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/23
1886: It has always been a desire of mine to study medicine ever since I was a small girl, for even then I saw the needs of my people for a good physician.
1886: From the outset the work of an Indian girl is plain before her. We who are educated have to be pioneers of Indian civilization. We have to prepare our people to live in the white man’s way, to use the white man’s books, and to use his laws if you will only give them to us… the shores of success can only be reached by crossing the bridge of faith.
c. 1887: I like my studies very much indeed and don’t mind the dissecting room at all. We laugh and talk there just as we do anywhere.
c. 1890: My office hours are any and all hours of the day and night.
c. 1890s: It was only an Indian and it did not matter. The doctor preferred hunting for prairie chickens rather than visiting poor, suffering humanity.
c. 1900: I believe in prevention of disease and hygiene care more than I do in giving or prescribing medicine and my constant aim is to teach these two things. Plenty of fresh air and sunshine, that is nature’s medicine.
c. 1900: I’m not accomplishing miracles, but I’m beginning to see some of the results of better hygiene and health habits. And we’re losing fewer babies and fewer cases to infection.
c. 1906: I know I shall be unpopular for a while with my people, because they will misconstrue my efforts, but this is nothing, just so I can help them for their own good.
c. 1907: As for myself, I shall willingly and gladly co-operate with the Indian department in anything that is for the welfare of the tribe, but I shall always fight good and hard against the department or any one else against anything that is to the tribe’s detriment, even if I have to fight alone, for before my God I owe my people a responsibility.
c. 1912: When I realize all the work that God has given me to do, it almost takes my breath away to think how little justice I can do to it. But it is a comfort to turn and do the next thing to relieve some poor soul’s trouble.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/23
1861: “I am now about to report to you what we did.”
1865: “We are all Americans.”
1868: “I want to see Grant elected, because I think he is the best patriot and that he only can bring peace to the country.”
1869: “The question is still one of deepest interest, ‘What shall be done for the amelioration and civilization of the race?’”
1869: “The measures to which we are indebted for an improved condition of affairs are the concentration of the Indians upon suitable reservations.”
1869: “Much, however, remains to be done for the multitude yet in their savage state.”
1869: “There can be no question but that mischief has been prevented and suffering either relieved or warded off.”
1869: “The experiment has not been sufficiently tested to enable me to say definitively that it is a success.”
1885: “All my life I have occupied a false position.”
1885: “I never was ‘great’ and never expect to be.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/18
We have the thinking backwards.
It’s not more than that which we can give.
It’s no more than who they are is that which they can receive.
Apportion proportionately.
You do not put steak in a tea cup.
It’s about relevance and proportionately.
Are your words a fit, for them, in size and type?
Otherwise, you will be unheard.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/13
How does Wilma Mankiller’s reveal her strategy for Cherokee self-determination across health, education, and governance?
1992: “Do not think this is going to happen.”
1992: “The other advice I have to give you is, do not live your life safely.”
1993: “We had a government in this country long before there was a United States government.”
1993: “Don’t ever argue with a fool.”
1993: “I had very low self-esteem.”
1994: “I hope that when I leave that it will be said that I did what I could.”
2001: “Yet what’s absolutely remarkable about Cherokee people is that they almost immediately began to reform the Cherokee Nation.”
2001: “So everybody helped each other.”
2008: “It certainly wasn’t a new world to the millions of people that have lived here for thousands of years.”
2009: “If you want to see our future, look at our past.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/14
How does Chief Joseph’s 1877–1879 speeches clarify his philosophy of freedom, equal law, and Indigenous sovereignty?
1877: “I am tired; my heart is sick and sad. From where the sun now stands I will fight no more forever.”
1879: “The white man has more words to tell you how they look to him, but it does not require many words to speak the truth.”
1879: “I have heard talk and talk but nothing is done. Good words do not last long unless they amount to something.”
1879: “Words do not pay for my dead people. They do not pay for my country now overrun by white men. They do not protect my father’s grave. They do not pay for my horses and cattle. Good words do not give me back my children. Good words will not make good the promise of your war chief, General Miles. Good words will not give my people a home where they can live in peace and take care of themselves. I am tired of talk that comes to nothing.”
1879: “Treat all men alike. Give them all the same law. Give them an even chance to live and grow.”
1879: “All men were made by the same Great Spirit Chief. They are all brothers. The earth is the mother of all people, and all peoples should have equal rights upon it.”
1879: “You might as well expect the rivers to run backward as that any man who was born a free man should be contented when penned up and denied liberty to go where he pleases.”
1879: “If you tie a horse to a stake, do you expect he will grow fat? If you pen an Indian up on a small plot of earth and compel him to stay there, he will not be contented, nor will he grow and prosper.”
1879: “We ask to be recognized as men. We ask that the same law work alike on all men. If an Indian breaks the law, punish him by the law. If a white man breaks the law, punish him also.”
1879: “Let me be a free man — free to travel, free to stop, free to work, free to trade where I choose, free to choose my own teachers, free to think and talk and act for myself — and I will obey every law or submit to the penalty.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/04
What are Aleister Crowley quotes around Thelema and modern magick practice?
1904: “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.”
1904: “Love is the law, love under will.”
1904: “Every man and every woman is a star.”
1904: “The word of Sin is Restriction.”
1904: “There is no law beyond Do what thou wilt.”
1904: “Success is thy proof: argue not; convert not; talk not overmuch!”
1904: “Remember all ye that existence is pure joy.”
1904: “I am the flame that burns in every heart of man, and in the core of every star.”
1904: “The slaves shall serve.”
1909: “The method of science, the aim of religion.”
1913: “I am Pan! Io Pan! Io Pan Pan!”
1913: “The joy of life consists in the exercise of one’s energies, continual growth, constant change.”
1922: “I slept with Faith and found a corpse in my arms; I drank and danced all night with Doubt.”
1929: “Magick is the Science and Art of causing Change to occur in conformity with Will.”
1941: “Man has the right to live by his own law.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/04
c. 1875: “One does not sell the earth upon which the people walk.”
1877: “My friend, I do not blame you for this.”
1877: “We preferred our own way of living.”
1877: “We were no expense to the government.”
1877: “All we wanted was peace and to be left alone.”
1877: “I have spoken.”
1877 (reported): “Ah, my father, I am hurt bad. Tell the people it is no use to depend on me any more.”
1877: “I was born on the prairies where the wind blew free and there was nothing to break the light of the sun.”
1877: “I was born where there were no enclosures.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/04
How do Black Elk’s 1932–1953 statements — from Black Elk Speaks to late-life testimonies — clarify the Lakota “sacred hoop,” interpret Wounded Knee, and frame Indigenous resilience?
1932: “You have noticed that everything an Indian does is in a circle, and that is because the power of the world always works in circles.”
1932: “Then I was standing on the highest mountain of them all, and round about beneath me was the whole hoop of the world.”
1932: “I did not know then how much was ended… A people’s dream died there. It was a beautiful dream.”
1932: “It is hard to follow one great vision in this world of darkness and of many changing shadows. Among those shadows men get lost.”
1953: “Then they will realize that we Indians know the One true God, and that we pray to Him continually.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/02
What are definitive Martin Buber quotes?
1923: “To man the world is twofold, in accordance with his twofold attitude.”
1923: “Primary words do not signify things, but they intimate relations.”
1923: “The primary word I–Thou can be spoken only with the whole being.”
1923: “The primary word I–It can never be spoken with the whole being.”
1923: “There is no I taken in itself, but only the I of the primary word I–Thou and the I of the primary word I–It.”
1923: “The Thou meets me through grace — it is not found by seeking.”
1923: “I become through my relation to the Thou; as I become I, I say Thou.”
1923: “All real living is meeting.”
1923: “The present arises only in virtue of the fact that the Thou becomes present.”
1923: “Love is responsibility of an I for a Thou.”
1923: “In the beginning is relation.”
1923: “Spirit is not in the I, but between I and Thou.”
1923: “Every means is an obstacle. Only when every means has collapsed does the meeting come about.”
1950: “There is something that can only be found in one place. It is a great treasure… The place where this treasure can be found is the place on which one stands.”
1950: “To begin with oneself, but not to end with oneself; to start from oneself, but not to aim at oneself; to comprehend oneself, but not to be preoccupied with oneself.”
1950: “This is the ultimate purpose: to let God in. But we can let him in only where we really stand, where we live, where we live a true life.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/02
How do Terence Tao’s 2003–2025 quotes illuminate discovery, collaboration, pedagogy, and AI in modern mathematics?
2003
“Ever since I can remember, I have enjoyed mathematics; I recall being fascinated by numbers even at age three.”
“I work in a number of areas, but I don’t view them as being disconnected; I tend to view mathematics as a unified subject.”
“There are fewer miracles, but instead there is lots of intuition coming from physics and from geometry.”
“In analysis, many research programs do not conclude in a definitive paper, but rather form a progression of steadily improving partial results.”
2006
“Collaboration is very important for me, as it allows me to learn about other fields, and… share what I have learnt about my own fields.”
“I pick up a lot of problems (and collaborators) by talking to other mathematicians.”
“I’m drawn to problems placed in as simple a setting as possible — a ‘toy model’ — where other difficulties are turned off.”
“I’d like to see mathematics demystified more, and to be made more accessible to the public.”
“I’m also a great fan of interdisciplinary research — taking ideas from one field and applying them to another.”
“If I learned something in class that I only partly understood, I wasn’t satisfied until I was able to work the whole thing out.”
2007
“The concept of mathematical quality is a high-dimensional one.”
“We all agree that mathematicians should strive to produce good mathematics.”
2009
“Often advice has its notable counterexamples.”
“Ultimately you should follow advice not because someone tells you to, but because it was something that you already knew you should be doing.”
2019
“They’re still out of reach.” (on near-miss approaches to Collatz)
“We have too little control over it.”
2020
“The freedom to fail is important.”
2022
“Science is cumulative and collaborative: individual contributions build up over time, and there is plenty of work for everyone.”
2023
“Therefore, an ideal collaboration should contain at least one ‘pessimist’ and one ‘optimist’.”
2024
“I do envision a future where you do research through a conversation with a chatbot.”
“Then you can do factory production–type, industrial-scale mathematics, which doesn’t really exist right now.”
“I’m not super interested in duplicating the things that humans are already good at. It seems inefficient.”
“A todos los efectos prácticos, las elecciones y la democracia funcionan.”
2025
“There’s this phenomenon in mathematics called universality.”
“We’re seeing the successes, not the failures.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/01
Which countries make up 90% of the world’s population in 2025?
India — 17.78%
China — 17.20%
United States — 4.22%
Indonesia — 3.47%
Pakistan — 3.10%
Nigeria — 2.89%
Brazil — 2.59%
Bangladesh — 2.13%
Russia — 1.75%
Ethiopia — 1.65%
Mexico — 1.60%
Japan — 1.50%
Egypt — 1.44%
Philippines — 1.42%
DR Congo — 1.37%
Vietnam — 1.23%
Iran — 1.12%
Turkey — 1.07%
Germany — 1.02%
Thailand — 0.87%
Tanzania — 0.86%
United Kingdom — 0.84%
France — 0.81%
South Africa — 0.79%
Italy — 0.72%
Kenya — 0.70%
Myanmar — 0.67%
Colombia — 0.65%
South Korea — 0.63%
Sudan — 0.63%
Uganda — 0.62%
Spain — 0.58%
Algeria — 0.58%
Iraq — 0.57%
Argentina — 0.56%
Afghanistan — 0.53%
Yemen — 0.51%
Canada — 0.49%
Angola — 0.47%
Ukraine — 0.47%
Morocco — 0.47%
Poland — 0.46%
Uzbekistan — 0.45%
Malaysia — 0.44%
Mozambique — 0.43%
Ghana — 0.43%
Peru — 0.42%
Saudi Arabia — 0.42%
Madagascar — 0.40%
Côte d’Ivoire — 0.40%
Cameroon — 0.36%
Nepal — 0.36%
Venezuela — 0.35%
Niger — 0.34%
Australia — 0.33%
North Korea — 0.32%
Syria — 0.31%
Mali — 0.31%
Burkina Faso — 0.29%
Sri Lanka — 0.28%
Taiwan — 0.28%
Malawi — 0.27%
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
In-Sight Publishing 
