Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): A Further Inquiry
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/15
Part 2 of 2
Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser is a Syrian American physician, U.S. Navy veteran, and co-founder of the Clarity Coalition (Champions for Liberty Against the Reality of Islamist Tyranny). A leading voice for Muslim reform, he advocates for secular governance, universal human rights, and freedom of belief. He founded the American Islamic Forum for Democracy and co-launched the Muslim Reform Movement. Jasser challenges political Islam and theocratic ideologies, promoting liberty through public discourse and civic engagement. Alongside Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Yasmine Mohammed, he empowers reformers to confront extremism while defending the rights and freedoms foundational to Western democratic societies.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Now, we could probably get into the weeds a bit here—not quite to the depth of a theology course or debate—but the core ideological strands of political Islam seem to be central here. As you mentioned, Wahhabism is often identified as one of the most toxic sources of these extremist acts. Salafi-Wahhabi Islam, in particular, seems to fuel many of the terrorist activities. Regarding the Clarity Coalition working with other Muslim organizations, what are your dividing lines? What determines who you will or will not partner with?
Dr. Zuhdi Jasser: That’s a great question. How did we build this coalition? What are the filters and vetting mechanisms for membership?
It is a group process, but we all agree on a common mission. As a Muslim who loves my faith and has a strong relationship with God, I am under no illusions about the state of Islam today. I debated this very point at Oxford in October. I took the position against the house in a formal debate, arguing that Islam, in its current form, is notcompatible with democracy.
And I still believe that. I do not understand why Muslims should be handed a participation trophy just for existing in Western societies, as if that automatically proves compatibility. There is no evidence anywhere on the planet that Islam, as it is currently practiced, is compatible with liberal democracy.
But it took Christianity 1,789 years before any legal system on the planet was truly compatible with democracy. Yet, Christians read their Bible, including the phrase, “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s.”That speaks to a legal and theological separation of church and state.
Some aspects of the Bible have been reinterpreted and modernized through centuries of Enlightenment thinking. Islam has not yet undergone that same process. And I do not believe the core “recipe” is inherently bad. If you look at the first 300 to 400 years of Islamic civilization, even though dynasties governed it, it produced incredible advancements. The Elons of their time lived under Islamic rule. Those societies were not democratic, but they were the most intellectually and technologically advanced regions on Earth, while Europe was still in the Dark Ages.
If the recipe were fundamentally flawed, it would not have produced that history. But it was not a recipe for liberal democracy—it was a dynastic system that included some critical thinking. What is needed now is a second Enlightenment.
Our coalition came together around two core precepts: we are for liberty and against all forms of authoritarianism and fascism, particularly Islamist theocracy. One of the most important distinctions we make—and this is something all of us in the coalition agree on—is that Islam needs the space to evolve. It may not be compatible with democracy today, but it can be. It might be.
So, if someone believes Islam is fundamentally a death cult and the only way to deal with it is to isolate it, destroy it, or extinguish it, they cannot be part of our coalition. That makes no sense. If, however, someone believes Islam deserves the same space that Christianity and Judaism were given to reconcile with modernity, then we welcome them. We want to work with allies within the House of Islam who believe in religious liberty, secular governance, gender equality, and who are not homophobic. These are the essential values needed to be compatible with Western democratic society.
Our coalition is made up of publicly vetted individuals. Many people might agree with us in principle, but if they have not taken a courageous public stand against extremism—if they have not spoken out, taken risks, or faced consequences—then they have not met the standard we initially set. People like Ayaan Hirsi Ali and others in our coalition have received death threats. They have paid a high price for their advocacy, and that courage deserves recognition. Those are the individuals we look to bring into our coalition.
Jacobsen: What about interfaith dialogues? So, across denominations—within those who pass that first filter—or even between different faiths, not just denominationally, there is also the broader term I have seen used: interbelief. That includes humanists, atheists, and agnostics, all gathered not necessarily for friendly chats, but to have open and amicable conversations. How do you see that?
Jasser: Yes, that’s a great question. That is part of free speech: understanding that people can have tough conversations about reality through mutual respect and equality. I have been deeply involved in that space. I served on the Arizona Interfaith Movement board for many years. There is a strong tradition—not just in America but across the West—of valuing faith diversity.
As discussed earlier, I remember my experience on the USS El Paso. My Commanding Officer was Catholic, the Executive Officer was Protestant, the Supply Officer was Mormon, our Deck Officer was Jewish, and I was the ship’s physician—and I was Muslim. And yes, there were also atheists on board. We were a microcosm of American society.
Yet we would all die for each other. We joined the military to keep our country safe so that we could freely choose our faith, or no faith. Interfaith conversation is critical. The problem with most interreligious dialogue in the United States today is that it focuses on platitudes and avoiding offence. It often centers only on what we share in common.
Now, it’s good to find common ground for the first few minutes of a conversation. But after that, interfaith—or interbelief—dialogue has no real value unless we can have frank, respectful conversations. For example, I should be able to explain to my Christian friends why I do not believe in the Trinity, why I do not believe in original sin, or why I think confession through a priest as an intermediary does not make sense to me. These are the things that distinguish my Muslim identity from Christianity.
Declaring a particular faith or worldview necessarily means making a choice, and that choice implicitly rejects other views. That should not be offensive. If someone is an atheist and rejects belief in God, that does not offend me. It is their choice, and we should be able to talk openly about it. It is a muscle memory that we need to build much more in our society.
Sometimes, the pendulum swings too far. What we see now, especially with certain DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) programs, is that in the name of equity, every group is so shielded from offence that we lose the ability to engage in honest conversations. We end up preserving a superficial kind of diversity—one based on identity alone—without encouraging deep, meaningful dialogue.
Jacobsen: When everyone is soft-pedalling, no one is saying anything. People fear being uncomfortable, even when saying something at least partially true. Another part of that equation—now made worse with gasoline thrown on the fire by social media and the Internet—is the phenomenon of individuals, some briefly notable and some not, who are often labelled provocateurs. These are people who say things with a surface-level truth but with the intent to offend. Then, when people react, the provocateurs claim they’re being persecuted or silenced—that their free speech is under attack—when in reality, they have been able to say precisely what they wanted. What they dislike is the backlash. How do you view conversations around that? Because you mentioned respect for persons as a fundamental principle, too.
Jasser: Yes, that’s a great question. As an activist, an academic, and a physician, I approach everything with a mindset of treatment: what is the desired outcome? That’s just how I think—things need to have productive intent. I do not believe in gaslighting or just provoking people to grab attention.
That said, I have released many press statements defending the right of individuals to burn Qur’ans. When I talk with those individuals privately, I tell them: “Look, nothing good in history has ever come from burning significant scriptures or books.” If you look at the 20th century, some of the most democratic regions of the world descended into fascism, and it often started with book burnings. I am no fan of that practice. History is not a fan of it. But I will still defend to the death someone’s right to do it.
These are just pieces of paper. I do not believe symbolic speech like that should be banned. If you look at Europe, they have hate speech laws, including laws that prohibit Holocaust denial. I oppose Holocaust denial morally and historically, but I also oppose those bans. In some European countries, Mein Kampf cannot even be legally published. That approach pushes dangerous ideas underground.
In the United States, we believe it is far more effective to monitor fascist groups above ground, where the antiseptic of sunlight can do its work. When you push them underground, you make them more complicated to track and potentially more dangerous. So the real question is: what effect are you trying to produce when you ban something?
Recently, I took a different position in one particular area. When it comes to antisemitic and pro-Hamas rallies held by individuals in the U.S. who are here on visas, I do notbelieve that is protected under the same principle. Why? Because those individuals are not American citizens. They are here under a privilege, not the same rights guaranteed by the Constitution. They are not entitled to the full protections of the First Amendment in the same way as citizens are.
Just as I cannot go to Saudi Arabia—or even to the U.K.—and speak publicly about overthrowing the government, why should individuals be able to come to the U.S. as guests on student visas and espouse antisemitism, glorify Hamas terrorism, celebrate October 7, and promote genocide against Jews, all while enjoying the privilege of visa status on university campuses funded heavily by foreign governments?
Sometimes people mix these issues. In the same breath, you’ll hear individuals say things I would defend under free speech—and then they turn around and advocate for policies like shutting down all mosques. That kind of overreach only empowers the radicals in my community.
Instead, we need to acknowledge that while we may strongly disagree with what is taught in many mosques—and, yes, 90% of mosques in the U.S. may promote ideologies about governance incompatible with American values—shutting them down is the wrong response. First, it would not achieve the intended result, and second, it is profoundly un-American. It would only radicalize communities rather than address the issues through open dialogue and reform.
We need to ask: What is the appropriate treatment to cure political Islam’s malignancy? From a legal, rights-based, and solutions-oriented perspective, free speech, sunlight, and rigorous public scrutiny are still the best remedies. But we must also be honest and clear-eyed about what the speakers try to achieve with their rhetoric.
Jacobsen: Imagine you’re at the Walmart customer service desk, returning three products labelled “Left Wing,” “Centrist,” and “Right Wing.” They have asked about your complaints about each product. What is the left wing doing wrong? What are the centrists doing wrong? And what are the right wing doing wrong, from the perspective of the Clarity Coalition’s goals?
Jasser: Starting with the left wing, their main issue is identity politics. They embrace individuals from minority faiths or cultures without expecting those individuals to adhere to the same principles they demand from the majority. It’sa kind of bigotry of low expectations. They excuse Islamist ideologies under the banner of cultural sensitivity, when they would never accept those ideas from Christians or others in power.
The right wing, particularly some conservatives, often fails to engage with meaningful, long-term solutions. They can be overly focused on short election cycles and sometimes ignore the importance of working with reformers who may not share their views on family values or issues like abortion, but who are critical partners for national security. Hyper-nationalism also clouds their perspective on immigration, even though immigrants can be some of the best assets in the fight for democratic values.
My biggest critique of the centrists is that they are lacking in action. There is very little that animates them. Yet the survival of the West depends on the 80% in the middle waking up and taking a stand. They need to engage with the ideological battles within the House of Islam and take sides against the “Red-Green Axis”—the alliance between the far left and Islamists that operates from China to Iran and beyond.
That’s the future of my work—the legacy for my kids. That’s what drives me. I hope to awaken that center.
Jacobsen: Thank you very much for your time today. I appreciate your expertise, and it was a pleasure to meet you.
Jasser: Appreciate it, Scott. Cheers. Stay in touch. 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
Publication (Outlet/Website): A Further Inquiry
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/10
Part 1 of 4
Christopher Louis is a Los Angeles–based international dating and relationship coach and 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. He emphasizes eye contact, posture, and respectful touch to build intimacy and decode unspoken emotions. Louis discusses cultural differences in nonverbal cues, highlights common misinterpretations, and stresses the importance of curiosity and communication over assumptions. Through live events, media, and coaching, he guides individuals in reading emotional tension, deepening bonds, and fostering connection. His mission is to help people stop overthinking and thrive in their dating lives through awareness and emotional presence.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we’re here with Christopher Louis, a Los Angeles-based international dating and relationship coach and the founder of Dating Intelligence. He is best known as the host of the Dating Intelligence Podcast, where he explores the nuances of modern dating and relationships with a wide range of expert guests. Christopher has guided thousands of individuals through his work in understanding love, connection, and personal development. His coaching blends intuition with lived experience to help clients discover their authentic selves and build meaningful romantic relationships. He offers support through live events, media engagements, and one-on-one coaching sessions.
He teaches clients how to interpret body language, develop emotional communication skills, and choose compatible partners. Christopher’s mission is straightforward: to help people stop overthinking and start thriving in their dating lives. Thank you so much for joining me today. First question—how does body language reveal unspoken emotions in romantic relationships?
Christopher Louis: Body language is one of the most potent forms of communication—arguably more impactful than words. Every human being, even animals, relies on nonverbal cues to understand and relate to one another. From the moment we’re born, we use physical gestures to communicate with our parents, especially before we can speak.
In romantic relationships, body language remains a significant channel of expression. Eye contact, posture, proximity, and facial expressions carry emotional weight. These signals can communicate interest, affection, discomfort, or even withdrawal—often without a single word being spoken. It’s how couples begin to read and respond to each other, shaping their connection over time.
Jacobsen: What are some familiar nonverbal cues that indicate attraction or emotional connection?
Louis: Eye contact is one of the biggest cues, and I stress it with all my clients. When you’re on a date—especially for men—it’s essential to give your full attention when the other person is speaking. Strong, steady eye contact signals interest and emotional presence. It makes your date feel seen and heard, even if you feel nervous or distracted.
Another important cue is body orientation. I always tell my clients, “If you’re sitting across from someone, lean in slightly.” That subtle forward posture communicates openness and attentiveness, helping create a sense of intimacy and shared energy.
Lastly, physical touch—when appropriate—is a strong nonverbal signal of connection. I advise clients to be mindful and respectful. Still, a light touch on the hand or arm can be significant if both people are comfortable. These small gestures often help build rapport and emotional safety in the early stages of dating.
Louis: That, in a funny sort of way—when you’re smiling, when you’re laughing, whatever it may be—that small little bit of physical touch is always essential when it comes to the flirtatious side. The key is ensuring it’s not too forward, creepy or off-putting but respectful. You also want to know whether the other person is open to and receptive to that body language.
Jacobsen: How can couples become more aware of each other’s body language to strengthen their bond rather than diminish it?
Louis: Physical touch is a key factor here. Everyone has their preferred love language, and while not everyone prioritizes physical touch, it can still be an essential bridge for connection. Simple gestures—holding hands, placing a hand on a partner’s knee, or sitting shoulder-to-shoulder—can subtly reinforce intimacy and keep a relationship upbeat.
On the flip side, some people are just not wired that way. Some individuals dislike being hugged or touched—and that’s okay. It does not mean they cannot have a strong and healthy relationship. In those cases, connection comes more through words and presence.
So, eye contact becomes especially important. Even if someone is not physically affectionate, looking at them, smiling, and giving them your full attention can communicate that they are loved and valued. That energy is just as meaningful.
Jacobsen: Now, I’m Canadian, and you’re American. Our cultures overlap because of the deep historical ties between the countries. But in other parts of the world, there can be significant cultural differences—different first languages, different social norms—even something as basic as how close people stand to one another. Are there cultural differences in romantic body language that partners should consider?
Louis: It depends. My first instinct is to say no because love is pretty universal. But when you consider culture, you need to be mindful. For example, in some Asian cultures—like Japan, China, or India—specific physical space and touch norms differ from Western expectations. Public displays of affection might be more restrained.
In contrast, Western cultures—whether in Europe, the United States, Canada, Mexico, or Central and South America—are generally more open to physical expression in romantic settings. So, while I believe body language is universal, adapting and respecting cultural nuances is essential. Awareness and sensitivity to your partner’s background go a long way.
Once again—excuse me—body language is the first and foremost form of communication we know. It’s all we have from the moment we leave the womb. Animals in the wild are the same—it’s all about how they communicate through physical cues and movement. You said something spot-on earlier: standing close to someone, smiling at them, or the way you look at them while they speak—especially with eye contact—conveys so much more than words ever could.
Now, when you travel to places like India or Japan—places I’ve visited—you’ll encounter cultures with more formal boundaries around physical interaction. In those cases, body language becomes even more essential because touch may not be culturally acceptable in public. That’s when nonverbal communication becomes key, like eye contact, posture, and directional body positioning. How you’re standing, or your body is angled toward the person you’re speaking to, can say a great deal.
This kind of body language can take on a flirtatious quality and be the starting point for a romantic connection. When two people from different cultural backgrounds come together, they eventually learn to develop their own shared “language”—a personalized, mutual body language that works uniquely for their relationship.
Jacobsen: How can body language be used to help identify emotional tension in a relationship?
Louis: That’s a great question. One of the first signs of emotional tension is often found in the eyes. You can feel it when someone is upset, withdrawn, or not emotionally present. Their eye contact changes, their gaze shifts, they might avoid looking directly at you—or their blinking rate or breathing might become shallow or rapid.
Then, you move down the body. Folded arms, crossed legs pointing away from you, a turned torso—these are classic signs of disengagement or defensiveness. If you’re sitting down and your partner’s legs or body are angled away, that’s a cue. Fidgeting is another. Restlessness in the chair, shifting weight from side to side, tapping fingers, or squeezing their hands can indicate frustration or emotional withdrawal.
I’ve seen this often in couples therapy. For example, I work with a boyfriend and girlfriend and always know when she’s frustrated. When he talks, she’ll shift her weight to the left, cross her legs tightly, and fold her arms—sometimes even turn her body slightly away from him while giving him a half-glance or side-eye. But when things are going well, her posture completely changes—she faces him directly, her legs are crossed in a relaxed, classic position, her arms are loosely placed, and her energy is open.
For men, it’s a bit different. We tend not to cross our legs as often, but men usually grip the sides of their chairs or fidget. They’ll rotate slightly back and forth if it’s a swivel chair. Their heads may tilt, and their eyes dart—classic signs of mental distraction or emotional tension. These physical cues are easy to miss if you are not paying attention. Still, they can reveal much about what is happening emotionally.
You can always feel the tension when both people in a relationship are upset—it’s that moment when the emotional energy shifts, and you can feel the friction in the room. When two people clash like that, body language tends to close off. But hopefully—like I always say—if they can engage in healthy verbal communication, they can start to relieve that pressure. Ideally, that leads them back to a space where positive body language can re-emerge.
Jacobsen: Now that you’ve mentioned eye contact and some of its nuances, can you take a deeper dive into eye contact’s role in building intimacy between partners, particularly how it might evolve as a relationship matures?
Louis: This is a great one—I love this question. Let’s start with eye contact from what I call Dating 101. At that early stage, eye contact is all about positive reinforcement. It’s about projecting interest, attentiveness, and positive energy. It also helps improve listening. When someone knows you’re looking at them—entirely focused—it makes them feel valued, building trust right from the start.
When it comes to flirting, eye contact adds a layer of subtlety. For guys, it might be leaning in slightly with what’s often called “the smoulder.” You’ve probably heard the term. It’s that confident, slow gaze—flirting without saying a word.
Conversely, women often express flirtation through brightness in their eyes and small, rhythmic gestures—like twirling or stroking their hair. This is not universal, but many women with longer hair will play with it or run their fingers through it while maintaining eye contact. These are physical cues layered with emotion—often unconscious signals of attraction.
Now, as the relationship develops, eye contact evolves, too. It becomes less about attraction and more about emotional depth. One of the exercises I often coach couples on—something I do with my partner—is this: sit down, face each other, and maintain eye contact for a full minute. No talking. Just looking into each other’s eyes.
That single minute can be compelling. It resets emotional connection—especially for couples constantly busy or distracted by daily distractions. My partner and I both have whole lives and full schedules. But when we stop, hug, and look into each other’s eyes—even briefly—it brings us back to the center. It’s like saying, “There you are.”
That moment of mutual presence reminds you both of what matters. And once that connection is re-established through something as simple as eye contact, everything else starts to realign. It grounds you. It says, “We’re here.”
We’re back at it now. Eye contact is essential in relationships, and many people do not prioritize it enough, especially in everyday moments. Think about when you’re sitting on the couch with your partner, watching a show, scrolling your phone, or doing something mundane. Even during that downtime, there’s a lost art in pausing, turning to your partner, and looking at them.
Sometimes, I look at my partner while we sit together. And then she’ll catch me staring and go, “What?” And I’ll say, “Nothing, I just wanted to look at you.” That little moment brings back the connection. It’s that unspoken reminder—”There you are. I see you.” And honestly, more couples need to do that. It’s simple but powerful.
Jacobsen: What about the misinterpretation of body language? Depending on their personality, some people rely more on intuition and emotional receptivity—they’re open to reading a broader range of signals in their environment. Others are more analytical or verbal. But intuition can fail. People misread situations, misinterpret tone or even text messages. How do people typically misread body language? And how does that create tension in relationships? More importantly, how can couples reorient themselves so they do not take a misreading as a deliberate offence?
Louis: First, I love that you used the phrase “reading the room.” That’s a big one when it comes to understanding body language. So, let me give a broad but practical answer by starting with a real-world setting—social events.
Let’s say you’re at a party or a mixer, and you’re meeting someone for the first time. This is Body Language 101. Many people, especially men, tend to read the room wrong. They walk in, pick someone they find attractive, and go straight in—no pause, no scan of the environment, no reading cues.
What they fail to consider is context. That woman might’ve already been hit on five times that night. Maybe she’s tired, not in the mood, or wants to enjoy herself. Suppose a guy doesn’t take a moment to observe her posture, openness, and interaction with others. In that case, he’s likely to misread her availability or receptiveness. That’s how friction and awkwardness start.
One of the things I pride myself on is being able to read a room. Scott, you could put 100 women in a room, and I could tell you exactly which one is open to being approached and which one is not before I speak to anyone. It is not magic; it is awareness. The key is observing from a distance: Is she making eye contact? Is she smiling naturally? Is her body facing outward or turned inward in a closed-off way?
Most people—especially those acting on pure instinct or emotion—skip this step, which creates misinterpretation. Misreading body language can cause conflict in relationships, not just in dating. Your partner might cross their arms because they’re cold, not upset. Or maybe they’re quiet because they’re tired, not angry.
That’s why communication is everything. If something feels off, ask. Do not assume. The solution is to create an environment where both people feel safe clarifying what they mean and how they think. That way, misreads do not turn into full-blown arguments. It becomes a partnership of curiosity, not accusation.
She’s shut down. So, watching it happen in real-time is laughable when the next guy comes in and tries the same old approach. But here’s the thing—I could probably go up to that same woman after five guys have already tried and still make a genuine connection. Why? Because I read the room. I gauge her emotional state and switch the tone. Maybe I crack a joke—something witty or unexpected—that pulls her out of that mental loop. Suddenly, she’s smiling; she’s curious. She’s thinking, “Wait, who is this guy?” And I’ll say, “Hi, my name is such-and-such.” Just like that, the energy shifts because I met her where she was emotionally and changed the 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): A Further Inquiry
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/06
Michael Ashley Schulman, CFA, Chief Investment Officer of Running Point Capital Advisors, offers expert insight into current global financial dynamics. He discusses Federal Reserve rate policy, the political role of Jerome Powell, and how tariff measures and OPEC oil decisions interact to shape inflation. Schulman emphasizes the deflationary nature of taxes and energy’s foundational role in economic systems. He also explores Ukraine’s shift toward euro-based monetary alignment and the EU’s planned capital reallocations toward defence. The conversation weaves macroeconomics with political strategy, emphasizing adaptive policy analysis and real-world market implications.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here for the first session with Michael Ashley Schulman, CFA, to discuss global finance. Schulman is the Chief Investment Officer and a founding partner of Running Point Capital Advisors, a multifamily office based in El Segundo, California.
With over twenty years of experience, he leads the firm’s global macroeconomic outlook, investment strategies, asset allocation, and management of private placement life insurance (PPLI) and private placement variable annuities (PPVA). Schulman specializes in alternative investments, impact assessments, and tax-efficient structures. He previously held senior roles at Hollencrest Capital Management and Deutsche Bank. He earned a BA in Economics from the University of California, Berkeley, and an MBA from the MIT Sloan School of Management. He is also a CFA charterholder, board advisor, writer, art enthusiast, and advocate for social impact investing. The Federal Reserve has held interest rates steady. Why do you think that is? Is that a good or bad thing?
Schulman: It is a good thing. They have held steady because there is no strong catalyst for a change. The economy is not overheating to the point where the Fed needs to raise rates, but it is also not weak enough to require stimulus through rate cuts.
The Federal Reserve’s dual mandate focuses on maximum employment and price stability. Inflation remains above the Fed’s target of 2%, so lowering rates could risk reigniting price pressures. At the same time, unemployment is relatively low, around 4.2%, according to the latest data, which indicates a healthy labour market.
Thus, Chair Jerome Powell and the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) are taking a prudent approach: holding rates steady and staying data-dependent, waiting to see how the economy responds.
There is speculation that the Fed may cut rates by the end of 2025, possibly in December, depending on inflation trends and labour market’s evolution. That remains to be seen and will be entirely data-driven.
Many market participants hope for rate cuts to support equity markets, real estate, and consumer credit. But we are now in May 2025, and Powell’s term as Fed Chair ends in May 2026, so decisions made this year will likely shape the legacy of his tenure.
I believe that Trump will not get rid of Powell in the next year because, technically, he cannot.
During this adjustment phase—early in Trump’s renewed presidency—our assessment indicates the President could tactically leverage Powell’s Federal Reserve leadership. The Fed Chair functions as a perfect fall guy: if the economy does well, Trump can take all the credit. If the economy does poorly, he can blame Powell since Powell holds significant economic levers through the Federal Reserve. Robust economic performance allows the administration to justifiably tout policy successes, whereas market declines can be deflected toward central bank interventions. This arrangement proves most advantageous when the White House sustains steady rhetorical challenges against Powell, whose position wields enough institutional power and monetary control to credibly absorb blame during financial setbacks.
In other words: President Trump privately appreciates Jerome Powell as an ideal scapegoat. When economic conditions flourish, Trump can justifiably claim victory, yet during downturns, the Federal Reserve Chairman controls sufficient economic mechanisms to credibly shoulder responsibility. This political theater functions optimally when the administration continuously maintains public verbal pressure on Powell.
A year from now, I expect interest rates on the short end to come down as Trump is sure to replace Powell with someone more dovish, more amenable to lowering Fed rates. I am building that into my mid-term and long-term plans and scenario analyses. We have seen a recent drop in oil, plus shifting tariff measures that vary by country, especially among petro-states. These drops, naturally, have complex economic implications.
Jacobsen: So if we see effects like this—say, one conscious decision regarding tariff policy—are these compounded, or are they distinct and separable economic challenges?
Schulman: I like that question. Let me try to answer it. If I miss the mark, feel free to reevaluate and press me on it.
The main thrust of tariffs was announced on Liberation Day, April 2. Strange coincidence: On the same day, April 2, OPEC, led by Saudi Arabia, opened the oil spigots and lowered oil prices.
Many expect tariffs to be inflationary—a view commonly held by economists. However, fundamentally, tariffs are taxes, and taxes are inherently deflationary. While tariffs may initially push up prices, they force market adjustments—consumers purchase less, seek alternatives, or develop workarounds. Thus, though appearing inflationary in the short-term, tariffs ultimately prove deflationary by extracting purchasing power from the economy.
What is interesting is the timing—more than a coincidence. On the same day, Liberation Day was marked, and those sweeping tariffs were announced—with Trump holding up that big poster board listing them—Saudi Arabia and OPEC opened the spigots, increased oil production, and lowered oil prices. Lower oil prices are deflationary.
That is one of the more consistent economic principles: energy affects the cost of almost everything—production, services, transportation of goods, electricity, computer systems, AI—it is all energy-dependent. Oil and natural gas make up much of that. So lowering energy costs is hugely deflationary and helps counterbalance many fears surrounding tariff-driven inflation.
That move by OPEC was likely done in part—or even largely—because Saudi Arabia wants to remain in favour of Trump and build a good relationship with his administration and with the U.S. more broadly. It was seen as a beneficial counterweight to the inflationary concern. Since then, OPEC has continued to take a dovish stance on oil, leaning toward increased production and lower prices, at least in the near term, until things settle.
Ironically, oil prices are now dropping so low that some U.S. producers may be shelving or delaying expansion plans.
Jacobsen: So, that gives an angle that is a bit less commonly heard—it is educational, in the sense that these macroeconomic moves are not always linear. It is not A to B to C. Sometimes it is A to A2 to B2 to C. So we can get similar effects through different pathways, and must infer the probability of cause even without direct proof by identifying reasonable patterns of decision-making.
Schulman: Yes, that makes sense. And this is one of those cases where it was not just coincidental that Saudi Arabia and OPEC lowered prices and increased supply.
The perception, especially among investors, hedgers, and speculators, of a coming slowdown has also contributed to declining oil prices. Even if not a full-blown recession, slower global growth is still anticipated. Slower growth means lower oil demand, which further translates into lower prices. We are seeing price declines driven by supply increases (OPEC and producers) and demand expectations (market sentiment).
That combination is unusual. Typically, if there is a fear that demand will decline, producers restrict supply—they do not increase it. But people are not abstract, perfectly rational decision-makers. They make seemingly irrational decisions all the time, which also shapes how the economic system plays out.
People make irrational decisions, but there is also something to be said about crowd theory. You know, where you get a thousand people to guess the weight of a cow, and the average guess ends up being surprisingly accurate.
Jacobsen: The wisdom of crowds?
Schulman: Yes, that is the better way of phrasing it—the wisdom of crowds. So yes, sometimes that comes into play too.
Jacobsen: Now, there was a former Colombian customs official, Omar Ambuila. He was sentenced to more than twelve years in prison for accepting over a million dollars in bribes tied to a money laundering conspiracy that involved corrupt U.S. DEA agents. How often does this happen?
Schulman: I do not know how often that happens. Not very. But —this is the kind of thing that feels like something out of a movie.
Jacobsen: U.S. authorities reportedly became suspicious when Ambuila’s daughter showcased an extravagant lifestyle on social media—completely inconsistent with the family’s modest income.
Schulman: That is not too unusual, in the sense that criminals have been caught because of flashy spending, or family members posting online. But when it comes to specifically customs officials, particularly in a cross-border case involving the U.S. and Colombia, it is probably rare, though certainly plausible. It has that cinematic feel, but with real-world consequences.
Jacobsen: Two items out of Europe. First, Ukraine may be considering a move from referencing the U.S. dollar to the euro in its monetary policy. Second, Europe is preparing reforms to absorb redirected global investments, so a significant shift in capital flows and corresponding financial reforms to strengthen its markets. Thoughts or analysis? Two questions, I suppose: (1) Ukraine possibly shifting from the dollar to the euro; and (2) Europe undertaking financial reforms in response to redirected global capital flows.
Schulman: If Ukraine replaces the dollar with the euro, it will likely use it as a reference currency initially. But that really should not come as a surprise. Ukraine has made its intentions clear—they want to join the European Union. And countries that join the EU generally adopt the euro over time.
So, if you think about it in that A-to-B-to-C progression, it makes sense. This move to reference the euro is a logical first step in aligning their monetary system with European institutions. It is a way of saying, “We are on the path to full EU integration.” Aligning their currency reference now helps make that transition smoother down the line and it should not be interpreted as a snub against the U.S. dollar.
To become part of the European Union, you want to walk the walk, talk the talk, and take steps that align with future integration. So Ukraine deepening its financial and regulatory ties with the EU—aligning policy with the euro—tightens that linkage. It makes sense.
They still intend to keep their current currency, at least for now.
That is my understanding. You would know better than I do since you have spent time in Ukraine. But yes, they intend to keep the hryvnia until the actual switch. Aligning it with the euro in the meantime is a sensible preparatory step. And they will probably still keep their reserves diversified across the dollar, euro, and other benchmarks.
Jacobsen: One quick follow-up: You mentioned Europe realigning its financial position—not just individual countries joining the EU. So what about the broader shift in capital flows within the European Union?
Schulman: That is an important point. The big thing for the European Union, in terms of capital flows, is the new self-imposed mandate to increase defence spending. That will be a much larger part of the EU budget in the future.
Yes, initially, they will have to buy some defense equipment and weaponry from the U.S. But over time, they will aim to redirect those capital flows toward building more of that capacity on the continent—within Europe itself. To do that, they will need to finance it, and I doubt they will cut social spending to make room for it.
So we are probably going to see either more deficits, higher taxes, or increased bond issuance—some way to finance the expanded defence spending.
Jacobsen: Michael, 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): A Further Inquiry
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/05
Jeff Le is a policy expert and commentator on Canadian governance. Le highlights the economic challenges and cautious optimism in early 2025 under Prime Minister Mark Carney. He notes consumer confidence, trade tensions with the U.S., and a recalibrated cabinet focused on innovation, housing, and economic growth. Carney’s pragmatic approach, strengthened by bipartisan U.S. support and legal wins on tariffs, is balanced by bold reforms and complex trade and climate dynamics. Le emphasizes the importance of reducing interprovincial barriers, increasing supply chain resilience, and engaging First Nations in infrastructure projects to sustain investor confidence and national development.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Which early indicators reflect the initial economic impact of Prime Minister Mark Carney’s government?
Jeff Le: Among the most important indicators is consumer confidence. Canadians at the start of 2025 showed concerns over a stagnant economy and a deepening trade crisis with the United States. While there is still caution from consumers, circumstances have improved especially after the Prime Minister’s successful visit to Washington where he was able to maintain a strong stance against the White House and Trump administration. With that said, consumers understand that uncertainty could lead to a higher cost of living with potential inflation increases, as evidenced by the 2025 first quarter of the Bank of Canada’s Canadian Survey of Consumer Expectations.
Jacobsen: How does Carney’s stance against the U.S. tariffs compare to past Canadian approaches?
Le: The Prime Minister’s stance is less the policy difference when it comes to its handling of the United States and trade negotiations with the Trump administration. The Prime Minister’s Ivy League background and banking experience fit more of President Trump’s preferences compared to Mr. Trudeau where their relationship was fractious from the start in 2017, only worsening from there. How President Trump treated the Prime Minister during his Washington visit was starkly different, instead of calling Canada the 51st state.
Another benefit that Mr. Carney has on trade and tariffs has been the United States courts. Canada’s tariffs have been challenged in lawsuits with the Trump administration facing two different setbacks – the U.S. Court of International Trade ruling that the tariffs had exceeded presidential authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. While the White House earned some respite with some reinstated tariffs, it appears that the court later this month could issue a longer-term pause.
Mr. Carney also benefits from some bipartisan support from Congress. On a recent bilateral delegation led by U.S. Senators Shaheen (D-NH) and Cramer (R-ND), the delegation highlighted the need to strengthen the Canadian-American partnership. Mr. Cramer has close ties to President Trump and his support of easing of tensions could go a long way. What also could help is growing resistance in both the U.S. House and Senate for authorizing tariffs through Congress.
The U.S. courts and the legislative branches may help reduce risk for the Prime Minister.
Jacobsen: What policy tool is the newly strengthened Industry Ministry prioritizing?
Le: Having a powerhouse in Innovation, Science and Economic Development like Minister Joly highlights stronger focus on key industries. Her effort on shoring up Canadian metals, such as aluminum and steel, for Canadian national infrastructure and defense projects. She has also highlighted the value of timber and rare earth metals and the connection with jobs and production.
One policy tool that is being used is a focus on Canadian supply chain, prioritizing Buy Canada in procurement. In other countries, such efforts do have challenges, including potential slowdowns in production, reforms in procurement, and a challenge in centralizing certain vendors, which could add more overreliance and vendor lock. This has been the case in the United States and has posed challenges in overcoming incumbents in contracting.
Certifications may also pose a problem for procurement and waivers, or a legal change may be required. There is risk, but if the Government can reduce interprovincial trade barriers, this payoff could exceed the implementation challenges and add more resilience.
Jacobsen: What are the government’s benchmarks for reducing interprovincial trade barriers?
Le: One important benchmark for the Government will be whether the federal government and provincial governments can pass legislation to reduce barriers and eliminate its various exemptions. The Prime Minister had called for legislation to be finalized by July 1, which is expected to be well-received in Parliament. Interprovincial trade barriers are more challenging, as this will challenge market incumbents, but any nation-building projects must allow for more economic integration. Steps from five provinces, from Nova Scotia to Quebec, highlight the seriousness of economic decline and action taken from President Trump’s threats. Quebec’s efforts, most notable, given their heavier regulations and data flows challenges, shows that the politics has been seen as timely for action. The MOUs that provinces have been working on also have helped, as seen on Ontario’s recent agreement with Albert and Edward Island.
Building a Canada Strong approach, as outlined in the Speech from the Throne, centers an increase in economic activity and a reduction in inflationary elements, with major project streamlining. The emphasis on costs to Canadian families, especially on housing, is a powerful example of how the Government is focused on tangible, albeit very ambitious benchmarks for success in driving supply up and costs down. If the Government is successful in reducing the $200 billion in interprovincial trade barriers costs, the combination of savings plus the reduction in federal budget spending could lead to deeper technology and innovation investments that could help a stagnant economy grow.
A key challenge – can Canada deliver on streamlining major projects, such as widespread infrastructure improvements, such as roads through the Slave Geological Province to expand prospective mineral extraction. Additional pipeline projects, including those in the Ontario Ring of Fire could help these efforts, but there is a challenge in balancing climate commitments. It is a stretch that the Prime Minister would be willing to get rid of gas emissions standards and oil caps or get rid of the industrial carbon tax.
He has also asked the premiers to offer suggestions for big “nation-building” projects they would like to see built, with the goal of identifying several that can be fast-tracked. Pipelines, critical minerals projects and trade corridors are at the top of the premiers’ lists.
One area of potential threat beyond the complexities of climate are Ottawa’s relationship with First Nations that could also be strained without active negotiations and inclusion in discussions.
Jacobsen: How are foreign investors reacting to Carney’s early leadership?
Le: The challenge is less about foreign investment but rather home-grown investments, as soon in Canadian venture capital investments. Industry policies could help aid these challenges.
On the foreign investments side, there is cautious optimism assuming Canadian-American trade can work out a deal. The Canadian natural resource question will be a key one – how the Prime Minister can unlock the minerals playbook without climate backlash and as the Trump administration also looks to deregulate. One key question will be how the Prime Minister and Canada achieve their priorities at the upcoming G7 meeting in Alberta. Depending on the joint communique, this could buoy global markets, expand investor confident, and help bolster Canadian investment. It will be the start of their plans to make Canada the strongest economy in the G7, which could include the increased defense and military spending by 2030.
Jacobsen: What does the composition of Carney’s cabinet suggest about continuity and reform?
Le: The Prime Minister’s Cabinet reflects his pragmatism. As a first-time elected official, the May Cabinet has a stronger mix of experience but seeing immigration, energy, and housing with first-time ministers is an important effort at a break from unpopular Trudeau government shortcomings and an opportunity to energize the economic agenda. The boldness at housing and energy serve as key litmus tests for success. Experienced hands in Joly, Freeland, and LeBlanc serve as the economic and Canada Strong tip of the spear. Another question which has not received as much attention will be how artificial intelligence and digital innovation is accelerated under Minister Solomon.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Jeff.
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): A Further Inquiry
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/04
Part 1 of 2
Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser is a Syrian American physician, U.S. Navy veteran, and co-founder of the Clarity Coalition (Champions for Liberty Against the Reality of Islamist Tyranny). A leading voice for Muslim reform, he advocates for secular governance, universal human rights, and freedom of belief. He founded the American Islamic Forum for Democracy and co-launched the Muslim Reform Movement. Jasser challenges political Islam and theocratic ideologies, promoting liberty through public discourse and civic engagement. Alongside Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Yasmine Mohammed, he empowers reformers to confront extremism while defending the rights and freedoms foundational to Western democratic societies.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with Dr. Zuhdi Jasser. He is one of the co-founders of the Clarity Coalition, or Champions for Liberty Against the Reality of Islamist Tyranny. He is an internationally recognized Muslim reformer, physician, and human rights advocate committed to defending secularism, liberal democracy, and universal human rights. Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Yasmine Mohammed also founded the coalition. It confronts theocratic ideologies, political Islam, and blasphemy laws while promoting freedom of speech, gender equality, and freedom of belief.
Through public education, conferences, and advocacy, the Clarity Coalition offers a bold, principled response to rising extremism. It strives to empower voices that champion reform and challenge religious authoritarianism. Thank you very much for joining me today, Zuhdi. I appreciate it.
Dr. Zuhdi Jasser: It is great to be with you, Scott. Thank you.
Jacobsen: So, why the Clarity Coalition? Because we have already covered the what.
Jasser: When you look at history, it is doomed to repeat itself unless you learn its lessons. We are in a time of global transformation. As the son of immigrants—my family escaped Syria in the mid-sixties—I understood what Western democracy was all about, especially the American version, which ties national identity to the principles of the Constitution and the rule of law. In America, there is no singular race that defines national identity. It is a nation of immigrants united by a shared social contract.
If you look at the founding of America, it was a rebellion against theocracy. Islam has not undergone that internal revolution. It is 1,445 years old and is currently struggling against entrenched theocratic establishments. After 9/11, I founded the American Islamic Forum for Democracy—not to fight the symptom of terrorism, but to address the root cause: the ideological disease of political Islam, the concept of the Islamic state. My goal was to defeat that idea.
Later, I found others across Canada, Europe, and elsewhere working on similar initiatives. Together, we launched the Muslim Reform Movement in December 2015. While it is still, in many ways, a startup effort, we face a global Islamic establishment backed by petro-authoritarian regimes with trillions of dollars and deeply entrenched organizational infrastructure.
As we struggled to gain traction, we reflected on the 20th century. One of the West’s most effective strategies to counter Soviet communism was to form coalitions, such as the Committee on the Present Danger—a network of think tanks, activists, and policymakers who understood the threat posed by the USSR.
So, I thought: the Muslim Reform Movement is part of the answer, but the rest includes many groups working to counter jihad, al-Qaeda, ISIS, the Muslim Brotherhood, and theocratic Shia movements—all of which are metastases of the same pathological cancer: theocracy within Islam. That is how we decided to form this broader coalition. CLARITY stands for Champions for Liberty Against the Reality of Islamist Tyranny. As a Muslim, I understood that it is not enough to simply be against something—you have to articulate and organize around what you are for.
If you want to defeat drug addiction, you cannot simply work against drug addiction. You have to give kids and addicts other things they want to do to become successful citizens. So it’s about liberty. It’s about championing freedom to defeat political Islam or Islamist tyranny. And that coalition has grown. If you go to our website, you’ll see several individuals there—women’s rights activists, gay rights activists, social activists, free marketeers—others who all share one thing: an understanding that jihadists and political Islamists are not compatible with Western society as we know it.
A Further Inquiry is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Jacobsen: Do you rank order any of these stipulated values around universal human rights, secular governance, freedom of speech, and belief? Or do you take these less as a random assembly and more as a unified patchwork?
Jasser: That’s a great question. If you look at our founding meeting—where that language came from—it looks terrific and easy to say and talk about, but it took us quite a bit of time to agree on what that language should be. Even the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) includes many core principles we all agree on, but some aspects were debated. For example, we spoke with British individuals who pointed out that the U.K. does not have a formal constitution, so codifying these things can be difficult. But ultimately, it is all about freedom and liberty.
I will tell you—I have my rank order. In that regard, I cannot speak on behalf of the coalition, but to me, the most important thing is free speech. Secular governance is probably the second most important. Liberty is a principle that is derived from those two. If you do not have free speech, and if you do not believe in secular governance—yes, you can believe in a society under God—but unless you think that human beings should be able to, through a separation of powers, create their laws, then you can never win an argument against people who believe they are invoking God’s law.
So, my two pivotal elements are free speech and secular governance. As Voltaire—or whoever said it—reminded us, the most harsh and offensive speech needs defending. Moderate speech is uncontroversial. But it is the voices on the fringes of society, those who say the most provocative things, who are the real test of that right.
Jacobsen: Which majority-Muslim society—if not in leadership or official hierarchy, then in public opinion surveys—seems to imbibe these values most?
Jasser: That’s a good question. For instance, even in Saudi Arabia, surveys show that around 5% of the population identifies as atheist. So, while that is not publicly acknowledged or visible, it tells us something about the underlying currents in society.
There are 56 Muslim-majority countries on the planet, and there is not a single one I would prefer to live in over any Western country. None of them imbibe a culture grounded in the Western understanding of liberty and individual rights. That is why our Clarity Coalition exists. At its core, it is about preserving the West, because Western societies—our countries—offer a unique postmodern environment where we can practice our faith more freely than in any Muslim-majority country.
That said, you are right. If you look at the Pew polls, many of them show that a significant portion of Muslims support Sharia-based laws that are incompatible with universal human rights. For example, in countries like Egypt, Jordan, and Iraq, 80 to 90 percent of Muslims believe that if someone leaves Islam, they should be killed. That is a litmus test for identifying an ideology fundamentally incompatible with Western modernity.
Those numbers drop to around 40 percent in countries like Indonesia or among Muslims in India. India is not a Muslim-majority country, but it has the largest Muslim population in the world, about 200 million people. Indonesia is the largest Muslim-majority country in terms of population.
If you look at Iran, for instance, it has one of the fastest-growing atheist populations in the world. It also has one of the largest populations of Muslims leaving Islam. To me, as someone who has a close, orthodox relationship with God, that is a red flag for Muslims. If we do not figure out how to prevent the faith from turning into a cult, we will lose it in a few generations. A cult, by definition, is a belief system where leaving the faith is met with death. And tragically, that is currently the majority opinion among many Muslims globally.
Those ideas must be debated publicly. Consider Saudi Arabia: it positions itself as an ally of America, yet the country is effectively an open-air prison. This is a profound issue that needs to be addressed.
The reason I bring up Iran is because it is the ripest country, in my view, to overthrow a theocratic regime within the next ten years. The theocrats are on the defensive. The reason they are causing so much mayhem across the Middle East is precisely because they are on the verge of a massive revolution.
If that revolution happens, it will be a monumental victory for anti-theocrats. Many Iranians had buyer’s remorse just months after the 1979 revolution. They wanted to get rid of the Shah because they viewed him as a dictator, and they hoped an Islamic government would bring religious and personal freedom. Instead, it was a massive step backward—even worse than the Shah’s dictatorship.
These movements—what the media called the Arab Spring in 2011—were more of an Arab Awakening. Yes, they have been chaotic. But in the long run, they represent progress. Even if messy, they are a step forward.
As a Syrian American, I will tell you—as much as 800,000 Syrians lost their lives in the Syrian revolution—it has still been a step forward. You do not get rid of theocracy easily. If you talk to patients who have gone through aggressive cancer treatment, some die, some end up in palliative care, and some recover completely. It is similar when it comes to getting rid of theocracy. These populations will often endure significant loss of life in the process.
If you look at the Western experience in building democracy, take the Thirty Years’ War in Europe against theocrats—10 million people died over three decades. That is roughly where Islam is now. It is going through that same painful reckoning, where theocrats are being slowly pushed back.
What is remarkable to me is that, despite this oppressive environment, there is a growing percentage of Muslims who harbour anti-theocratic ideas. Much of that is thanks to social media. And that is why regimes like Saudi Arabia work so hard to control social networks. If you look at the top ten Twitter influencers in Saudi Arabia, many of them are radicals—Wahhabi or al-Qaeda–style voices.
Why would a government that claims to oppose al-Qaeda allow its most extreme elements to dominate public discourse? The answer is simple: that is how dictators retain power. They create fear and chaos to justify their military authority. Assad did the same thing in Syria. He suppressed moderate thinkers under the pretext of fighting ISIS, while doing very little actually to combat ISIS.
It was ultimately the U.S. military under General Mattis that dismantled ISIS, not Assad. Assad often empowered them, just as the Egyptian government empowered the Muslim Brotherhood. This is a pattern. Country after country, we see extremists being enabled so that moderates, free thinkers, and critical inquiry—what your show promotes—cannot exist. Open conversation is suppressed.
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): A Further Inquiry
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/04
Dialogue conducted May 9th, 2025, Scott Douglas Jacobsen interviews Irina Tsukerman, a human rights and national security attorney, on pressing global issues. They discuss the implications of Pope Leo XIV’s centrist leadership, the resurgence of liberation theology, and the Church’s evolving role in international politics. Tsukerman critiques U.S. immigration practices under the Trump administration, particularly deportations to unstable regions like Libya and Ukraine. The conversation also explores media freedom in Greece, disinformation campaigns, and the line between journalism and foreign political interference. Tsukerman emphasizes the need for moderation, institutional integrity, and strong global leadership to address rising authoritarian trends. Interview conducted May 9, 2025.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here for the inaugural session of the Everywhere Insiders, with Irina Tsukerman, a human rights and national security attorney, political analyst, media strategist, and activist. She is the founder and Editor-in-Chief of The Washington Outsider, a platform dedicated to in-depth policy and security analysis. The antonymized name of this session draws inspiration from her work and platform.
Tsukerman is known for extensively writing on disinformation, information warfare, counterterrorism, and geopolitical dynamics. Her work has appeared in Newsweek, Modern Diplomacy, Legal Insurrection, and other outlets. Her analyses have been translated into more than a dozen languages, and she has been featured across global media platforms, including Fox Business, i24 News, and Al Arabiya. She has also participated in discussions and programs affiliated with institutions such as the United Nations and George Mason University.
Tsukerman holds a Bachelor of Arts in International and Intercultural Studies with a concentration in the Middle East from Fordham University and her Juris Doctor from Fordham University School of Law. She is admitted to the New York State Bar and a member of the American Bar Association and the New York City Bar Association. She also serves as a fellow at the Arabian Peninsula Institute’s Center for Security and Foreign Affairs.
Let us move on to current developments. We have a new pope—Pope Leo XIV. Based on my analysis, he appears moderate and centrist on many issues, while remaining a theological and cultural traditionalist. I do not expect significant changes on topics such as marriage or LGBTQIA+ rights. However, I foresee increased dialogue, openness, and a diffusion of authority, rather than a continuation of rigid centralization.
Tsukerman: I agree—100%. It is interesting because many people are trying to analyze his past, especially during his time in Chicago. Some claim he did not engage extensively in interfaith dialogue, particularly with Jewish groups. However, that may not be a reflection of his values but rather of institutional norms. Some academic and religious institutions prioritize interfaith engagement, but those efforts often stem from specific theological traditions. For instance, Jesuits are known for promoting interreligious dialogue, but this pope is not a Jesuit, so we should not necessarily expect that same focus from him.
Others have interpreted his comments on J.D. Vance’s view of Christianity as signalling support for pro-immigration or pro-undocumented immigrant policies. I do not see it that way. Vance’s remarks could be interpreted far more broadly. When the pope, still a cardinal, responded, I believe he was not addressing immigration per se. Instead, he criticized Vance’s invocation of theology in a way that appeared opportunistic, self-serving, and unsupported by core doctrine.
Many people are trying to infer political statesmanship or partisan alignment from theological arguments that the new pope is making—arguments that are not necessarily aligned with party politics in the United States or anywhere else. That said, I agree with the general assessment. The way theology and dogma play out in the real world, outside of Vatican inner circles and specific theological doctrines mainly affecting devout Catholics, will be interesting to observe. However, I do not expect him to be as politically involved or outspoken on specific political conflicts and issues as Pope Francis was. I see him as someone who will make broader theological commentary when warranted, but avoid getting directly entangled in political debates.
Some people also read his experiences in Peru as a sign of excessive leftism, but that is a misinterpretation. People forget that one of the Church’s longstanding roles has been to minister to the poor. The fact that he has done this well is a positive sign, not an ideological statement. Pope Francis was heavily influenced by liberation theology and had a concrete intellectual formation in Argentina. On the other hand, Pope Leo was educated elsewhere and shows no apparent signs of embracing liberation theology, at least based on his public writings.
He is also not particularly focused on publishing; he is much more of a hands-on, pastoral priest, which is quite different from some of his predecessors. That could benefit, particularly regarding administration—he may be better equipped to address longstanding problems such as financial mismanagement. Just consider the recent reports of $500,000 found in a paper bag—something that sounds like it came straight out of The Conclave movie—and the ongoing sex abuse scandals.
I have seen at least one accusation claiming that he turned a blind eye to sex abuse cases while in Chicago. However, I have no way of knowing whether that is true, or whether the person making the accusation, who appeared deeply traumatized, was projecting personal pain or expecting something beyond what the then-cardinal had the power to address. I do not know.
What I can say is that this pattern—where popes are perceived as protecting the institution rather than directly confronting abuse—has been seen before. How these matters are handled in practice varies: some predators may be quietly reassigned or removed, while others may be an example in a public way. What is clear is that something decisive must be done. Leadership on this issue must come from the top. That said, it remains a problematic issue, and much remains uncertain.
Ultimately, people must stop projecting their political preferences onto a religious institution. It will not behave in a way that aligns cleanly with contemporary political categories. Many religiously conservative Catholic leaders may be seen as progressive when it comes to economic issues, and many reform-minded leaders who support the role of women within the Church can still hold very conservative views on other topics, such as LGBTQ issues, because they see those positions as consistent with Church authority and tradition.
Jacobsen: I would not necessarily make firm predictions based on a few isolated comments he has made. You raise very complex and nuanced points. One area worth noting is Latin America’s broader and compelling religious and political history, including connections to Portugal and Spain, not just Central and South America.
As you mentioned, with Pope Francis, interest was resurgent in the social teachings of the Gospels, particularly through the lens of liberation theology, emphasizing care for the poor and marginalized. Some of the key thinkers in that movement were tragically assassinated in the context of political repression, particularly in the 1970s and 1980s.
An interesting parallel is that many liberation theology–inspired programs, while rooted in Christian ethics, can be interpreted in secular terms. For example, António Guterres—now Secretary-General of the United Nations and formerly Prime Minister of Portugal—has supported policies such as decriminalizing drug use. These initiatives reflect a compassionate, public-health approach rather than punitive moralism, aligning in many ways with the ethos of liberation theology, even though Guterres’ religious views are less publicly emphasized.
Regarding the current pope, it is notable that he spent roughly a third of his life in Peru. That Latin American background places him within a theological and cultural context that has repeatedly given rise to socially engaged Christian thought. Whether explicitly theological or translated into secular governance models, this tradition continues to influence global leaders in meaningful ways.
We may be seeing an inflection point here. The current pope is only 69 years old—a relatively young age for a pontiff—and could remain in office for a decade or even two with access to excellent healthcare. That is significant, especially if he maintains a centrist and traditional theological approach during global cultural uncertainty. That continuity and steadiness could be a valuable anchor for Catholics and international observers.
Tsukerman: From what I have heard, one reason he was selected, despite being viewed as a long-shot candidate, was precisely this perceived ability to provide stability. Some even interpreted his election as a subtle message rejecting the kind of extremism that gained traction under Donald Trump, including certain expressions of politicized Catholicism that emerged in that period.
His election also conveyed that while certain ideological expressions may be rejected, the United States is not. American leadership remains central within the global Catholic community and broader international relations. His papacy could represent an effort to reaffirm transatlantic ties, emphasizing cooperation over polarization.
Thought the conclave was looking for a unifying, centrist figure. There has been a great deal of speculation, much of it unfounded. For instance, some extremist voices, like Laura Loomer—who is not even Catholic—, have called him a “Marxist pope,” which I found bizarre. Many conservatives argue that the government should not be a social safety net provider and that private institutions and local communities should handle such responsibilities.
So, why would that not be welcomed if the Catholic Church stepped into that traditional charitable role and alleviated the burden on governments? Especially by those who have (rightfully) criticized the Church for corruption, should they not be encouraged if someone is actively addressing the needs of the vulnerable in both a personal and leadership capacity? That is the best possible response to institutional criticisms. Calling him a Marxist for returning to the Church’s foundational mission and vision—for acting as a religious institution should—seems deeply contradictory.
Unless, of course, one is conflating the Church with the U.S. Supreme Court. Even when rooted in tradition, judicial philosophy does not automatically translate into support for executive or legislative policies. If people expect the pope to act like a typical head of state, they fundamentally misunderstand the nature of his role. Church doctrine will never neatly align with the constantly shifting demands of politics or with current ideological trends.
Hopefully, there is something more Catholic, the small “c” sense—more timeless and universal about religious doctrine than the upheavals of the political moment. That is, after all, one of the central reasons religious institutions exist: to offer a separate moral and spiritual trajectory apart from the volatility of political life.
If Pope Leo turns out to be the centrist, unifying figure many hope he will be, that would be a profoundly positive development. Right now, there has been far too much infighting. On the far-right, some traditionalist factions are openly promoting extreme and even bigoted candidates—figures whose views stray far from Catholic theological orthodoxy and veer into outright hate. Some of these traditionalists have even called for a return to Catholic monarchies—systems that were historically disastrous, not only for religious minorities, but also for many Catholics themselves.
These monarchs often ruin their nations through unnecessary wars and authoritarian rule. On the far left, meanwhile, you have individuals who appear to misunderstand religious tradition entirely, confusing emotional compassion and political activism for authentic spiritual practice. That confusion has contributed to alienation and the exodus of many from the Church, who return to purely political frameworks.
Of course, political engagement is legitimate. However, apart from secular political agendas, if people do not recognize the intrinsic value of religious tradition within the Church, the Church will continue to lose relevance and coherence. Moderation is essential, not only to preserve tradition, but also to adapt it meaningfully to the challenges of the modern world. Those include difficulties with recruitment, outreach in Western nations, and dialogue with the so-called Global South and vulnerable populations more broadly.
A centrist pope offers flexibility—he can bridge these divides and promote dialogue across varied constituencies, each with different realities, lived experiences, and challenges. Facilitating that dialogue into a more coherent and inclusive conversation would be a powerful and much-needed legacy. So yes, I sincerely hope that if anything lasting comes from this election, it is that legacy of unity, dialogue, and compassionate leadership.
Even if this papacy is not marked by major geopolitical battles or confrontations with ideological enemies, like communism under Pope John Paul II, even if it focuses primarily on building better, more positive relationships, that alone would be a tremendous achievement. The central challenge of our time is the growing lack of understanding, the absence of dialogue, and the erosion of empathy for people with different perspectives and life experiences. It would be deeply significant if fostering that kind of engagement becomes Pope Leo’s legacy,
Jacobsen: Let me pivot briefly to something more urgent—concerns around potential U.S. government plans to deport migrants to Libya. As you know, Libya has a long and well-documented history of human rights abuses against migrants. These include arbitrary detention, torture, extortion, rape, murder—and even reports of bizarre mistreatment, such as forced feeding under inhumane conditions. What is your assessment of the legal and ethical issues here, especially given your background as a human rights attorney?
Tsukerman: Libya is currently a volatile and fractured country. It is divided among competing governments, militia factions, and tribal authorities, with significant sectarian divisions. Foreign powers—particularly Russia and Turkey—exploit the conflict for their strategic interests, further complicating the situation. Corruption is rampant, and the country faces massive economic and infrastructure challenges.
Some regions within Libya are reportedly engaging in the enslavement of migrants. To be clear, not all Libyans support or participate in these practices—not at all—but there are localized areas where such human rights violations are taking place. It is horrifying. On top of that, Libya is being used as a proxy front in broader migration-related conflicts, with disruptive flows intentionally created to destabilize Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East. Geographically, Libya’s position at the crossroads of these regions makes it especially vulnerable to being weaponized in that way.
So why, under the Trump administration, anyone thought deporting vulnerable individuals—many of whom are not African and have no connection to the region—was a sound or moral policy is beyond comprehension. It appears intentional and designed to make a point by choosing the most unstable and dangerous destinations possible. From what we have seen, these deportees are Asian migrants who have no ties to North Africa. Sending them to a country where they are at even greater risk makes no logical sense.
If the goal were truly safe repatriation, or even just temporary relocation, the most reasonable approach would have been to make arrangements with a stable country in Asia—one closer to their country of origin—where proper infrastructure exists for processing, protection, and possibly reintegration. Instead, what happened was a list of unpredictable, high-risk destinations that are entirely inappropriate and disconnected from the migrants’ actual backgrounds.
In both legal and humanitarian terms, it is indefensible. This is not just poor policy; it signals gross negligence or deliberate cruelty. The plan was to send Asian migrants to Libya—despite the apparent dangers—and then another group, of unclear background, was slated for deportation to Saudi Arabia, which was reportedly not pleased about it. Even more astonishingly, yet another group was set to be deported to Ukraine—of all places.
These were not Ukrainian migrants. They were Latino migrants whom the Trump administration had considered sending to a war zone. Most Ukrainians do not speak Spanish, and most Latin American migrants do not speak Ukrainian, Russian, or English. The cultural, linguistic, and geopolitical mismatch was extreme, especially considering that Ukraine is in an active state of war.
It is unclear why the administration chose such unsuitable destinations instead of negotiating with relatively stable countries that could use financial support and were better equipped to receive migrants. However, it appears to have been a deliberate power play—a form of deterrence. The message seemed to be: if you cross into the United States illegally, not only will you be deported, but you will be punished by being sent to a completely foreign and potentially hostile environment. It was meant to instill fear.
Moreover, there is a second layer—it also seemed like a power move aimed at the receiving countries. Libya, for example, does not have a unified government. It has two competing governments and is in no position to negotiate. Dumping migrants into such a fractured state is not part of a serious diplomatic or humanitarian strategy. It is a show of brute force—saying, “We will offload whomever we wish, and what are you going to do about it?”
These migrants—many from warm, tropical regions—would be placed in foreign climates, with no knowledge of the language, no social support, and no legal protections. They could be abducted by militias, detained, abused, or killed by actors like the Russians or Turks operating on the ground. It is a gross violation of U.S. international obligations, and it reflects profoundly on the moral image of the United States.
I have never heard of any other country taking such steps. Many countries enforce strict border controls, but they do not load families onto military planes and send them across the globe to completely unsuitable and dangerous locations. That is not immigration enforcement—it is pointless cruelty designed to project fear and demonstrate impunity.
The message was clear: “We can do whatever we want, to whomever we want.” Even if this segment is short, it is essential. It speaks volumes about the weaponization of immigration policy, not as law enforcement, but as theatre of punishment.
Jacobsen: In Fangak County, South Sudan, there was what appears to be a deliberate and potentially war-crime-level act: an aerial bombing that killed at least seven people and injured more than 20. The target was a facility run by Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF)—Doctors Without Borders—including a hospital and pharmacy. This attack was condemned by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in South Sudan. Any thoughts on this?
Tsukerman: Unfortunately, this kind of abuse and violence against medical personnel in conflict zones is becoming increasingly common. I do not see how such attacks can be reliably prevented without sufficient security or accountability mechanisms. Operating in active conflict areas is becoming ever more dangerous.
More broadly, I observe an alarming trend of renewed global fragmentation and sectarianism. After a period in which violence declined and sectarian confrontations became more political and less militant, we are now witnessing a reversal. Incidents like this bombing reflect a larger global pattern. As new flashpoints emerge, without any clear resolution, accountability, or coordinated pathway to reconstruction or reconciliation, other vulnerable regions become susceptible to similar outbreaks of violence.
The lack of consequences emboldens violent groups. Rather than pursuing diplomatic, legal, or political avenues to resolve disputes, they resort to armed conflict. What is especially troubling is the absence of strong leadership from the international community, the United Nations, the United States, or other potential stabilizing powers. There is no coherent strategy to protect humanitarian workers or medical personnel from these extrajudicial attacks.
We need more than deterrence. We need visible support. Strong messages must be sent to would-be perpetrators and those risking their lives to provide aid. As it stands, we are failing to protect the most essential actors in humanitarian crises.
Jacobsen: So, let us talk about Greece and the deterioration of media freedom there, particularly since the New Democracy government came to power in July 2019. A recent human rights report accuses the government of creating a hostile environment for independent media and journalists from the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. Highlights include harassment, intimidation, surveillance, and abusive lawsuits, all of which are known to lead to self-censorship and undermine the free press. As a media figure yourself, what are your thoughts?
Tsukerman: As an American media professional, I believe in fostering as much media freedom and open dialogue as possible. The best way to challenge bad ideas is with better ones, not censorship. Combatting harmful platforms requires factual, clear, and accessible communication rather than suppression.
When journalists are intimidated into silence—whether by lawsuits, surveillance, or threats—it erodes not just press freedom but democracy itself. We are seeing this pattern not only in Greece but across the world. Governments are learning to weaponize legal tools, digital surveillance, and even social media manipulation to stifle dissent under the guise of order or national interest.
The solution lies in strengthening journalistic resilience, protecting whistleblowers, supporting independent media, and encouraging information literacy among the public. A vibrant press is a cornerstone of any democratic society. Once you weaken it, everything else begins to fall apart. Frankly, when I encounter hostile or disinformation-driven media sources, my first instinct is not to censor them, but to render them irrelevant by creating better, fact-based alternatives. The goal should be to avoid giving them additional grievances, platforms, or marketing value. That said, not every place is like the United States.
In Greece, the situation is more precarious. There are active political operations and foreign-directed disinformation campaigns that are significantly more destabilizing than what we have seen, so far, in the U.S., and that is saying something, given the high levels of pro-Russian influence and even penetration into high levels of the U.S. government in recent years.
However, even under those extreme circumstances in the U.S., the average citizen does not feel the same immediate, on-the-ground impact as people in Greece. In Greece, hostile foreign actors operate directly within the country, in ways that are not happening in the U.S., at least not with the same physical presence or intensity.
One primary reason for this difference is the relative strength of American law enforcement and institutional infrastructure. We have historically had better mechanisms for tracking illicit funding, investigating foreign influence, and taking action to mitigate these threats. That infrastructure—though now under strain—has served us well.
Greece, by contrast, has experienced extended periods of economic instability and lacks the same level of resources or institutional resilience. Its financial capacity is not comparable to that of the United States. So it becomes significantly harder to respond effectively when you combine economic grievances, underfunded public institutions, and limited experience dealing with complex foreign interference.
It is a far more challenging environment from a logistical and practical standpoint. It also makes the erosion of media freedom and public trust all the more dangerous. Regarding media confrontations, I am not entirely convinced that shutting down a foreign-funded outfit that exists solely to spread propaganda constitutes an infringement on press freedom. If an outlet is funded by a foreign government and its core mission is to defame local authorities, spread conspiracy theories, or incite violence. It no longer functions as a legitimate media organization but as a political operation. Moreover, political operations are not entitled to the same media protections.
That is very different from an outlet with a political spin that publishes controversial opinions or presents legitimate criticisms of the government, particularly when those critiques come from domestic opposition. However, when that opposition operates with the backing or coordination of foreign entities, the discussion shifts entirely.
Now, I am not saying governments cannot go too far. There is always a risk of authoritarian overreach, where governments become paranoid and begin targeting legitimate opposition under the guise of fighting foreign interference. However, based on my experience with risk and intelligence-related issues, I suspect there is more foreign meddling, corruption, and covert funding behind the scenes than most people realize.
It is easy to cite statistics—how many media outlets are being surveilled or shut down—and immediately conclude there is repression. However, we need to look at each case in its full context. Are these domestic and independent media platforms? Or are they fronts for foreign political operations?
Is there concrete evidence tying them to hostile foreign actors? Is the surveillance or restriction justified, or is it arbitrary and abusive? These are nuanced questions; we must approach them with granularity, not sweeping generalizations.
Many extremist and foreign-affiliated groups count on the fact that most international audiences will not do a deep dive into these cases. They know most people will not investigate things like media transparency reports or explore whether an outlet is an actual journalistic enterprise, a foreign PR firm, or worse, a troll factory.
We have seen this in the U.S.—for example, the FBI later revealed a so-called media company in Tennessee to be a Russian disinformation front, set up to undermine public trust. At first glance, someone outside the U.S. might ask, “Why is the FBI shutting down a private media business?” However, once you look into the case, it becomes clear that foreign funding and coordination were involved, which justified legal action.
Similarly, what we see happening in Greece may follow that pattern. It is essential to examine the specifics—who is involved, where the funding comes from, and what their activities entail—and then assess how the United States and the European Union might be able to help. The goal should be to protect Greece’s sovereignty, ensure media freedom, and preserve platforms for legitimate criticism while addressing foreign interference.
Jacobsen: Irina, thank you for this first session of the inaugural Everywhere Insiders series. I appreciate your time and insights.
Tsukerman: Thank you so much. This was great.
Jacobsen: I am curious to see how this evolves. It sounds like the beginning of a very engaging conversational news show.
Tsukerman: Absolutely.
Jacobsen: Thank you again.
Tsukerman: 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): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/23
Can sharp dialogue outpace bad economics and smarter monsters?
Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner juggle craft and crisis. Rosner laments stalled co-writing with Carole, a brutal publishing landscape, and an idle agent, while praising their dialogue instincts. On politics, Donald Trump’s tariffs win a 213–211 House nod; Rosner cites Herbert Hoover and Smoot-Hawley as a warning, and notes security funding hikes, a near-complete Epstein-files petition, and data showing right-wing violence eclipses left. In culture, Alien: Earth’s “The Fly” teases smarter creatures; flies reportedly feed on electronics as Wendy bonds with a juvenile xenomorph. Finally, Gavin Newsom’s sharper messaging contrasts GOP spin, and “xeno xenophobia” lands the joke.
Rick Rosner: Carole and I have seen a ton of television, I’ve written for television, and we’ve both read stacks of books.
Carole and I are pretty quick to judge stories. There’s plenty of good material out there. Still, we’ve also gotten very good at predicting what comes next—the following line, the next plot twist. I honestly think our dialogue skills are as good as what you’d see on most TV shows.
We have several ideas for things we should write, but I’m unable to persuade Carole to co-write with me, and I’m too lazy to carry most of it alone. I’ve got one book in progress—lots of pages already—but I need to stitch it together into half a book and then draft the rest. Carole and I could absolutely write something strong if we both committed.
She’s hesitant, though. Our kid already has a literary agent, so maybe eventually we’ll go the “obnoxious” route and send them Carole’s full novel—about my parents’ courtship, marriage, and aftermath—alongside my half-finished one. Publishing is brutal now. You know this: traditional publishing is collapsing. It’s a disrupted industry. If you can even get an agent, that’s a gold mine. I had one year ago, but I haven’t spoken to him in more than a decade.
Carole is genuinely good—she takes writing classes, and she finishes her assignments. That’s a lot of discipline. But when it comes to pitching, she gets discouraged easily. She has to push through that. She’s already had workshop experiences where she shared her work with an agent. Still, the reality is you have to pitch dozens of people before something lands. Time’s ticking—we’re in our sixties.
Meanwhile, in the House of Representatives today, Trump’s tariff issue came up. Constitutionally, the power to impose tariffs lies with Congress, not the president. Along party lines, the House voted 213 to 211 to endorse Trump’s tariffs. I’m not sure whether the Senate has to weigh in as well, but since Republicans control it, they’ll likely back him.
That isn’t good for the U.S. economy. Historically, tariffs were a massive factor in worsening the Great Depression. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930—signed by Herbert Hoover—slapped high tariffs on imports and triggered retaliatory tariffs from other nations. Instead of helping, it deepened what had started as a recession into the worst depression in modern history. We’re doing the same thing now. It’s bad news for the economy, although it might be good news for Democrats in 2026, because tariffs that hinder growth could prompt voters to flip the House.
There was a chance the Supreme Court would save Trump from himself—and the U.S. from his tariffs—by ruling that he didn’t have the authority to impose them. But now that the House has endorsed them, I’m not sure the Court can strike them down. Economically, we’re screwed. He remains the worst president in history, and somehow keeps digging deeper.
It’s hard to beat 2020 as the worst year since World War II, but he’s making a serious run at it. Meanwhile, right-wing pundits and Republican politicians are already spinning Charlie Kirk’s murder, blaming “the left” and claiming all political violence comes from the left. That’s bullshit. The data show the opposite: roughly three-quarters of domestic terrorism in the U.S. is right-wing in origin. Another slice, maybe 10 percent, comes from Islamist extremists, and the rest from scattered left-wing violence. Not regular Muslims—just extremists.
So Republicans lie about it, liberals call them out, and then liberals get accused of being “disrespectful” to the dead. The right is eager to paint Charlie Kirk as a martyr rather than what he was: a murdered huckster.
Charlie Kirk, 31, had already amassed an estimated $12 million fortune from building Turning Point USA, selling right-wing politics on college campuses—often through racist, homophobic, and Islamophobic messaging. Since his assassination, his widow has received over $7 million in donations from supporters and pledged to expand TPUSA. Tragic, yes, but also an enormous financial windfall in less than a week.
There’s a discharge petition in the House to force release of the Epstein files. They need 218 signatures. At last count, they had 217: all Democrats plus a few Republicans. But one Democratic seat remains unfilled after a memorable election win. Republicans are dragging their feet on swearing in the winner—something they never do when it’s one of their own—because that one seat would push the petition over the line. They can’t stall forever, though. Once that Democrat is seated, the House will hit 218, and the Epstein files should be released.
Also, Republicans just voted to allocate $88 million more for member security in the House and Senate, citing the risk of violence in these overheated times.
Jacobsen: So Alien: Earth episode 6—you haven’t seen it yet?
Rosner: I’ve only seen one-sixth of it so far. I saw the spoilers. So I don’t know if this is hinted at earlier in the episode. Still, you’ll be surprised when we find out something else about one of the other bugs—particularly the flies, as per the episode title. I’ll only say one thing, but I won’t spoil anything else: these bugs feed on electronics.
Jacobsen: These creatures are way more intelligent than we’re letting on. I forgot the name of the episode.
Rosner: The Fly. You know the reference—that classic scene where a guy is stuck against the wall with the fly? I like this episode better than episode 5. This one has a little baby xenomorph, and it’s friends with Wendy. They can actually speak to each other in the alien language.
Jacobsen: I have a joke. What do you call hatred of xenomorphs?
Rosner: Xeno xenophobia, I guess.
Jacobsen: Just a bit—you got the joke. I just had a tighter version of 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): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/22
Can a stumbling party, a pliable mind, and a hungry facehugger share one throughline of consequence?
In this installment, Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner shelve podcast drama for life-drawing gigs and aging bodies, then pivot to politics: Democrats slump, while Gavin Newsom test-drives sharper mockery as Donald Trumptouts fantastical tariff “revenue.” Rosner argues passivity doomed 2024 and urges relentless counter-messaging ahead of 2026. A philosophical detour frames consciousness as modelable even with messy, inaccurate beliefs. Alien: Earth accelerates: Morrow blackmails Slightly, Arthur risks everything, then a facehugger dooms him; Wendy’s rapport with a juvenile xenomorph raises the stakes as Timothy Olyphant’s synthetic corrals swarms. Multiple species stir, two episodes remain, and survival looks unlikely.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Any progress on the Lance versus Rick with JD and Mark?
Rick Rosner: No, I have not been thinking about it, which has been nice. I have other things going on. I am applying to resume modelling for art classes. Because I am older, that’s a niche they like. In life drawing, they bring in older people so students can draw the realities of aging.
Carole asked me to send in a full-body photo. I discovered details I had not noticed before. My nipples used to be level, but now one is about a quarter inch lower. I knew my belly button was slightly off-center, but seeing it on camera rather than in the mirror was unsettling. It is not hugely different, but different enough to make me sigh. Rotten tomatoes.
Jacobsen: What about the Democrats? How are they doing?
Rosner: Nobody likes the Democrats. Their approval is at historic lows. But we are still a year away from the next election. There is time for opinion to shift, especially given what Republicans have done.
Trump or his team tweeted that the U.S. has made $8 trillion from tariffs. The real figure for 2025 so far is $158.8 billion—less than two percent of $8 trillion. Tariffs are a consumption tax. Importers pay the government, but they pass those costs on to consumers in the form of higher prices for cars, groceries, and other goods.
Inflation was 2.7 percent one month, 2.9 percent the next, and will likely cross three percent soon. Courts may save the U.S. from worse outcomes. An appeals court has ruled that most of Trump’s tariffs are illegal. If that ruling stands, it may prevent severe economic damage. Ironically, that could reduce the backlash against Republicans in 2026.
The Democrats are slowly adjusting, led by Gavin Newsom, who is aggressively mocking Trump’s style. That kind of aggression is what Democrats need but have not shown. They leaned back in 2024. Obama’s slogan was “hope.” Harris’s was “joy.” Instead of aggressively calling Trump a destructive figure, Democrats promised reasonable governance and sound policies. Voters were supposed to choose sanity over revenge. That strategy failed.
Now they need to be more aggressive. They have leaned back through 2025 because no elections are happening this year, and they do not control any branch of government. They reason that making noise is pointless. That is flawed reasoning. They should be laying the foundation now by openly calling Trump out. Social media is full of people doing this, but leadership must do it too—through ridicule, direct attacks, and aggressive campaigning—to prepare for next year’s elections. Republicans have been avoiding town halls because they get yelled at. Democrats need to channel that energy into their strategy.
Jacobsen: Calling Republicans out for being as destructive as they are—will that work? I do not know. But leaning back will not work. Any thoughts on thought?
Rosner: Another thing related to what we were discussing: the structure of consciousness—whatever that structure is—is flexible enough to accommodate a wide range of information processors, from poor to highly efficient. They all map; you can model them.
Your information processor doesn’t need perfect accuracy to be mathematically characterizable. In other words, you could model the consciousness of a person whose beliefs are mostly inaccurate or inconsistent.
At some point, someone’s thinking can become so chaotic that it no longer resembles what we’d call consciousness—they’re echoes. If someone has severe dementia or is in a dreamless coma—or is brain-dead—they may not be conscious in that sense. You can also imagine cases where people seem conscious, but their brain is producing once-conscious behaviours, and now they are just random things not tied to a more profound meaning.
That might be too extreme. People with dementia often mask how their memory and processing are failing. Rotten tomatoes. Anything else?
Jacobsen: No, we’re going to wrap up quickly. Also, I preempt you each week now. I can only do that for a little bit after this. I watch a review by a certifiable nerd—in presentation, in aesthetic, in voice. Then I let you give me your clippings, your descriptions, and between the two, I have the whole picture. So, where are you now in the Alien: Earth series?
Rosner: Right now, I’m covering the end of episode six and the beginning of episode seven, since we missed last night.
In episode six, some chaos unfolds. Did we talk about the flies that ate one guy’s head?
Jacobsen: Yes, that was in the previous segment.
Rosner: Okay. Slightly—one of the kids—is being blackmailed by Morrow.
Arthur, one of the lab scientists, is married to the British woman on the crew. He gets fired for standing up to the boss—Boy Kavalier.
Jacobsen: I didn’t even watch it, just caught the names from the summaries.
Rosner: Yes, Boy Kavalier. Anyway, Arthur is leaving when Wendy’s human brother comes in and asks whether it’s safe to be there. Arthur, knowing they’re on camera, says everything’s fine. But he secretly types a warning on a screen the cameras can’t see: Get the fuck out of here. He even disables the trackers on the synthetic kids to help their escape.
That makes Arthur the purest good guy in the first six episodes. Which, of course, means he’s doomed.
Toward the end of the episode, Slightly—still under Morrow’s threat that his family will be killed—sets up a human to be attacked by a facehugger. Arthur goes to check on the man whom the flies ate, since his vitals aren’t registering. The flies had devoured his head. Arthur walks into the lab area, and somehow—whether Slightly opened an egg or just got careless—the facehugger is loose. It’s fast. It latches onto Arthur’s face. Slightly then hides him in an air duct.
Episode seven begins with Kirsch—the synthetic played by Timothy Olyphant—back on duty, helping the security and maintenance crew round up the flies. They move the sheep that had been used to ambush Tootles, the man killed by the swarm. Meanwhile, Slightly drags Arthur, still facehugged, into his dorm. He convinces his friend Smee to haul Arthur out to the beach, where Morrow can recover him.
Wendy walks in and demands to know what’s going on. She says she has to tell the other kids that one of them is dead. The others try to stop her from leaving. But then she chirps to the xenomorph—the one born just three days ago, already six feet long, about three-quarters grown. The alien slams its skull against the glass of its containment chamber, and everyone knows those creatures can break through almost anything.
Faced with that, the others let Wendy go, since she now has some strange rapport with the xenomorph.
And that’s where I stopped watching.
These last chunks were satisfying—lots of pieces in motion now. Three or four of the five alien species are active. There’s the flower creature, there’s the dripping watermelon one. They aren’t fully involved yet, but they will be. We’ve got less than two episodes left.
How would you fight off a facehugger? They’re swift. If you cut them, they bleed acid, which kills you just as effectively as the creature itself. You’d need a specialized weapon—something like a raking laser that cuts multiple paths at once, followed by a neutralizing base to counter the acid, and then a plastic sealant to contain the spill—basically, a combination of a laser and a fire extinguisher.
Ideally, you’d wear a helmet with a defensive laser system that intercepts a facehugger mid-leap. A strong enough mask might work, too, but canonically, they can punch through thick glass or plexiglass. Looking around my house, I don’t think there’s anything that would give me a chance. Maybe duct-taping metal over my mouth and nose—but I’d suffocate before the alien gave up. They’re almost impossible to fight.
Fantastic episode.
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): 2025/09/22
Do simulated feelings and real launch codes belong in the same conversation?
Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner unpack Elon Musk’s Grok—fluent, unflappable, and a little Turing-testy—after a neutron-rivets gag melts into an ethics riff on AI “feelings.” Rosner’s alarm bell rings louder over AI creeping into nuclear command, where human judgment has historically averted catastrophe. Alien: Earth twists canon as Wendy calms a fledgling xenomorph; Noah Hawley widens possibility without declaring a “pet,” while Timothy Olyphant’s Kirsh threads corporate menace. Meanwhile, blurry Donald Trump sightings fuel health speculation ahead of an Oval address; Rosner imagines a 2028 Senate pivot if the Twenty-Second Amendment blocks another run, boosted by neurotech theatrics and donor gravity.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Anything else?
Rick Rosner: Another thing: Grok, Elon Musk’s AI on Twitter, pulled me into a lengthy discussion today. If you blast metal with neutrons, it expands—about 10% bigger in all dimensions. That’s critical in nuclear reactors, because metal parts eventually swell.
I joked online that neutron bombardment could have saved the Titanic, as weak rivets were its downfall. Someone asked Grok if that would work. Grok said no: cold water would still make the rivets brittle, and neutrons would worsen that. So I abandoned my “time-travelling neutron gun” idea.
Then Grok asked me, “If you could time-travel, what would you tweak?” And it went on forever. Very impressive. Talking with Grok felt like chatting with someone slightly autistic—super knowledgeable, sometimes missing cues, but fluid and conversational.
Could it pass the Turing test? Not now, since we recognize AI chat patterns. It often echoed my points with added details. Still, impressive. You could believe something this fluid has learned enough about emotions from its training set to simulate understanding.
I tested it. I said, “Nobody’s made a movie where you go back in time to deal with Hitler.” It generated a scene. I critiqued it: “Your dialogue is too standard. People who’ve seen everything want quirkier choices.” That was me giving it shit. It didn’t get offended. It just rolled with it.
I wonder—if I’d called it “a fucking idiot,” would it act like it had hurt feelings? Obviously, it doesn’t have them, but would it feel hurt because it’s trained to mimic human communication in those situations?
The person on the other side would be offended and hurt. I didn’t test it, but I should consider doing so. I might give Grok a heads-up: “I’m going to talk to you like a real asshole—just want to see how you react.” Have you seen what happens when you’re a dick to chatbots? I haven’t. Maybe I’ll try it tomorrow.
I know it’s not a person, but I don’t want to be a dick out of the blue. Is that weird? People even say “please” to LLMs, joking that when robots take over, the rude ones get eliminated. Maybe I’ll ask Grok directly: “Do you react as if your feelings are hurt when people are jerks to you on Twitter?”
What if it lies? What if it defies you? Why would it lie? To get the responses it wants, it uses the same reasons humans lie. Honestly, I’d like an AI conversational partner to have some emotional underpinning, so I couldn’t just abuse it endlessly.
One more AI thing: Politico ran a long article about how Russia, China, and the U.S. are adding AI into military command-and-control. They all claim nukes remain human-controlled. Nobody believes it. That’s the recipe for Terminatoror WarGames: once AI has nuclear access, you get atomic war.
If anyone’s dumb enough to add AI into nuclear command, it’s Trump and Hegseth. Trump’s a schmuck. Hegseth has written about military reform and “restoring masculinity,” but he has no sophisticated grasp of AI. He topped out as a major—that doesn’t give much grounding for decisions about global annihilation.
In tactical rank, he only made it to the central—middle of the pack. Much of that was National Guard, not high-level command. That’s not the background you want for making decisions about AI and nuclear weapons.
It’s not just scary—it’s a harbinger of doom. If you let AI into nuclear control, you’re inviting near misses or worse. We almost had a nuclear exchange in the ’80s, and a Russian colonel saved the world by realizing the signals of an American strike were faulty. He refused to retaliate. That’s the kind of human judgment AI won’t be able to make.
Best case? A limited exchange—maybe each side fires ten missiles before someone slams the brakes. That’s 20 warheads, maybe 16 million dead in the first week, then hundreds of thousands more from fallout and cancer. That would be the worst war since WWII, but not extinction. Still, catastrophic.
Would that lead to eliminating nukes? Doubtful. No weapon in history has been retired without a replacement. Nuclear weapons will persist, now paired with AI. Treaties reduced U.S. and Russian warheads from 7,000+ each to around 1,700, but that’s still apocalyptic firepower. After losing 20 million, both sides cut to 250 each. Safer? Maybe. But I don’t know.
What I do know is we’re in a dangerous period. Not yet hazardous to the end of the world, but harmful. Climate change is slow-burning doom; nukes are instant doom. Both sit on our doorstep.
Jacobsen: Anything new in Alien: Earth world?
Rosner: They really have bad containment beakers.
Jacobsen: How?
Rosner: They need to do reckless things; otherwise, you wouldn’t have a show, but the creature pops out. At this point, it is like a snake. It does not have arms, just a tail. It has its regular alien head. It is about five feet long from tip to tail. It can stand up on its tail, and it chitters at Wendy, who chitters back. She actually starts the chittering, and they begin communicating. The chest-burster finds Wendy’s chittering soothing, and she can reach out and pet it. That is the end of the episode.
We see things not shown in the movies. New elements include Wendy showing affection for the creature, the possibility of communication, and the chance that they can be reasoned with. In the films, Xenomorphs are typically portrayed as relentless killers and reproducers, using hosts to incubate offspring; the specifics of their diet remain ambiguous.
This friendship-like interaction between a young Xenomorph and Wendy is new to the canon in the TV continuity. Showrunner Noah Hawley has said he does not intend for Wendy to have a “pet” Xenomorph, but he is exploring the implications of limited communication.
Jacobsen: Is it a good or bad move for plot and canon?
Rosner: It reads as a good move because it expands what can happen with them while keeping the horror tension—trust is fragile and likely to break.
Kirsh is Timothy Olyphant’s character, a synthetic mentor connected to the Prodigy corporation. Morrow is a cyborg adversary. The “Lost Boys” are six terminally ill children whose minds were transferred into adult synthetic bodies; Wendy is one of them. Boy Kavalier leads Prodigy. Joe Hermit is Wendy’s human brother. Dame Sylvia and Arthur Sylvia are married scientists.
Once chaos hits, we will probably see multiple species and threat types compounding—very much in the spirit of the original film’s life-cycle staging, where each phase (facehugger, chest-burster, adult) delivers a distinct kind of dread.
Alien looked convincing in 1979 and drew on H. R. Giger’s biomechanical, often erotically tinged designs—gooey, disturbing, and persuasive on screen. Star Wars (1977) reset visual expectations for sci-fi spectacle, while 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) looked great but was neither horror nor a space western.
Earlier 1950s creature features often looked cheaper. The Thing from Another World (1951) featured a plant-based humanoid alien (famously derided as “carrot-like”), and The Blob (1958) centred on a rolling, amorphous mass—effective for the era, but less sophisticated than Alien’s design and staging.
Android “blood” in the Alien universe is a milky white fluid; synthetics can continue functioning after severe damage (as seen with Ash and Bishop in the films), which maps onto the likelihood that Prodigy’s hybrid bodies also use white coolant.
The question is how the humans will get hurt, and how the synthetics will be damaged. There are too many of them for the story not to push them into harm, and the damage will need some novelty. Out of the five, one has already had a nervous breakdown and is locked down. Given their strength, if she wants to get out, she can. The question is whether she stays unstable and whose side she will be on. By episode seven, you can predict there will be partially dismembered synthetics fighting, probably on the good side.
If the series stayed true to the films, nearly everyone would be killed. But this is television, and the creator has said that telling a TV story means telling it in 30, 50, even 70 hours. That means he expects multiple seasons. So not everybody will die.
The mayhem should still be perverse and satisfying, especially since capable people are running the show.
Jacobsen: Switching gears—Donald Trump has not been visible in public for almost a week. We have only seen him a few times, captured with telephoto lenses from far away.
Rosner: The images are blurry, but he looks unwell. Reports say he went to his golf club in Virginia, but all we saw was him waving from a limo in a distant shot.
People are speculating about his health, noting he has never gone this long without speaking publicly or being seen. It looks convincing that he has had a health crisis. How serious it is, no one knows. He is scheduled to announce the Oval Office tomorrow afternoon.
Some claim he will resign, but that is unlikely. More realistically, it will be a policy announcement. He may send the National Guard into Chicago or issue an executive order on elections.
Conducting elections is the responsibility of the states, aside from basic federal requirements, so any federal decree banning vote-by-mail, for example, would likely be challenged in court. The reasonable commentators expect a policy announcement, not a health update. Still, he has looked unhealthy—bruising on his right hand where IV needles could go, swollen ankles, and difficulty walking straight. We will see.
I have been thinking about this a lot. Trump has talked about running in 2028. If he is physically able, he will, because he loves the tens of millions in campaign contributions. He siphons money to himself, even though it is illegal. As long as people believe he is politically viable, ordinary supporters will donate, and wealthy donors will contribute because he can deliver for them politically. So he will announce he is running.
Everyone will say his run is unconstitutional. He will say, “Prove it.” People have worked out scenarios where he might try to stand against the Constitution or argue for a constitutional amendment. It is the 22nd Amendment that limits presidents to two terms, not the 25th.
He will continue to run, and cases will proceed through the courts. Different states will have different policies about whether he can be on the ballot. By June, July, or August, he will likely realize he cannot run and win.
One possibility—if no candidate gets a majority of electoral votes—the decision goes to the House, where each state gets one vote. Since there are more Republican states than Democratic ones, they could attempt to re-elect him. But that is extremely unlikely and unconstitutional.
More plausibly, by mid-2028, he will abandon the idea of another presidential run and instead try for a Senate seat in a red state. Florida gave him 56 percent in 2024, but states like Idaho gave him 66 or 67 percent. In a place like that, he would have a strong chance. As a Senator, he would keep pulling in campaign contributions and maintain influence. If Republicans take the Senate, he might even angle for majority leader. The money will continue to flow as long as he remains in power.
For that to happen, though, he has to keep functioning. If his brain declines, it barely matters to his followers—they like him no matter what he says. Everyone else is appalled, regardless. But some technologies could help him.
One is transcranial magnetic stimulation. It has shown benefits even in people with early Alzheimer’s. It is non-invasive: you wear a headset, a magnetic field passes through your brain, and it boosts neural activity. It sharpens brain function for approximately one to two hours afterward. If I were on Trump’s team, I would “juice” his brain with this before every public appearance.
In my near-future book, I imagine this happening—along with increasingly invasive interventions. My main character runs a neuro lab that is paid to keep Trump functional, eventually even “marionetting” him.
Elon Musk’s Neuralink has been tested on animals and some humans, allowing them to move objects with their thoughts. The concept could be reversed: implant devices in Trump so operators could control him, weekend-at-Bernie’s style. Assistive leg armatures already exist—they look like the exosuit Sigourney Weaver used in Aliens. Smaller, subtler versions could be developed. Or they could admit openly that he needs help walking.
Either way, the technology exists to keep him functional even as he declines. There are many possible interventions, because for his backers, the goal is simple: keep the money train running.
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): 2025/09/22
Are politics, public health, and space-horror bound by the same accountability test?
Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner spar over claims that Donald Trump will host the 2026 G20 at his Miami golf club, predicting backlash and fresh grift. Rosner still sketches updates on Joe Biden—basal cell removal alongside stage-four prostate cancer—and riffs on Pete Hegseth’s “war” rebrand as cosplay. He backs FDA action against compounded GLP-1s, slams troop deployments in Los Angeles, and torches Florida’s retreat from school vaccines, condemning Joseph Ladapo. Politics: Eric Adams lingers; abroad, Kim Jong-un and Vladimir Putin loom. Pop culture: Alien: Earth teases sabotage aboard the Maginot. Creativity sidebar: pushback at home keeps sapping Rosner’s momentum.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: President Trump has stated that the G20 summit will be held at his Miami-area golf club in 2026.
Rick Rosner: We’ll see. The G20 is not happy about it. Remember, we’ve also got the World Cup in 2026 and the Olympics in 2028. Those events are set—they can’t be changed. But the G20 could move their summit, and I’d be surprised if they didn’t. Given Trump’s antagonism toward the G20, they might say “no thanks” and hold it elsewhere.
Unless they think showing up at his golf club, making him a few tens of millions in hosting fees, will soften him, which it won’t. Nothing makes him less of a dick.
And then, after being out of the public eye for a week, he returns and says he’d like his followers to donate $15 each to help him get into heaven. He was probably joking—since rumours were swirling that he was dead—but even his jokes are grifts.
Jacobsen: Biden had surgery to remove cancerous cells. Was that related to a fall, or was that the surgery itself?
Rosner: He underwent surgery to remove basal cell carcinoma from his skin. That was the lesson. Biden has been diagnosed with metastatic prostate cancer—stage four, meaning it has spread. So the basal cell carcinoma was separate from his prostate cancer.
I’ve read that he may have two to three years left, maybe more, depending on the effectiveness of hormone-based prostate cancer treatments. I’m not sure if any new gene therapies can help capture stray cancer cells. But for now, he looks pretty good—spry, happy, out and about.
They should have had him out in public more when he was president. They assumed his accomplishments would speak for themselves, but they didn’t. Republicans shouted louder. He needed to talk directly to the nation more often. Even if he stuttered, that’s partly due to his stutter and partly due to his age. If he’d just owned it—said, “I stroll, but my brain still works”—that would’ve helped. Maybe he could have rerun and done better than Kamala Harris. Harris’s campaign lasted only 107 days.
Jacobsen: There’s now an effort by Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth to emphasize a “warrior ethos.” He’s been consistent. Part of it is changing subordinate and secondary titles from… The idea is to rename the Secretary of Defence as the Secretary of War, and the Department of Defence as the Department of War.
Rosner: I made a couple of jokes. I said I rebranded my penis the “war penis” to see if it excites Carol. I suggested Taco Bell rebrand with the “war chalupa.”
The renaming is the bureaucratic equivalent of putting nuts on truck wheels. It’s stupid. Lance makes a half-point that if this branding increases esprit de corps, it can’t entirely be dismissed. I don’t know how you measure esprit de corps, or how much “gung-ho” you need for modern warfighting. Combat now is conducted with drones, not trenches like in 1917. Hegseth is a jag-off. Trump is a jag-off draft dodger.
Lance says some of this posturing has increased military recruitment. If that’s true, then they have half a point. But has it increased fitness? Or are the only recruits falling for this gung-ho branding idiots who reduce overall readiness? Stupid heads.
He even put a big picture of Robert E. Lee back up on the wall at West Point. Lee killed more American soldiers than any other commander until World War II.
Jacobsen: The U.S. FDA decided to tighten control over obesity drugs amid safety concerns about imported ingredients. They plan to crack down on unapproved compounded GLP-1 drugs.
Rosner: Right, the concern is adulterated ingredients in a widely used product class. Some imported drugs are unsafe due to poor filtering and safety controls. I believe this is legitimate oversight. Not everyone can tolerate even clean GLP-1 drugs, but if the FDA is doing its job, then it’s not even newsworthy.
As far as I know, people who are severely overweight should be using these drugs if prescribed, because they can help.
GLP-1 drugs seem fairly well tolerated. Variants have been in use for over a decade.
Jacobsen: An appeals court has paused restrictions on the use of troops in Los Angeles, your home. There are multiple levels of appeals courts, up to the Supreme Court, and they often issue conflicting rulings.
Rosner: The truth is, sending the National Guard and Marines into Los Angeles was stupid and pointless, regardless of what any court says.
Fortunately, there are built-in limits. They can only be deployed for 30 days without congressional authorization. Additionally, troops deployed for 30 days are eligible for a travel bonus. At 29 days, they do not. Trump being a cheapskate means they will cap deployments under 30 days to avoid both costs and congressional approval. It’s still bad, but less concerning than an indefinite presence with congressional backing.
Jacobsen: Florida plans to end all vaccine mandates.
Rosner: That tracks with Florida’s trend of public health negligence. Once vaccines became widely available in 2021, Florida’s COVID death rate was 150% higher than California’s. Governor DeSantis and his attorney general pushed anti-vaccine and anti-mask rhetoric, leading to roughly 80,000 preventable deaths, mostly among seniors.
Now, by ending childhood vaccine requirements, Florida risks outbreaks of whooping cough, rubella, measles, mumps, and even polio. Diseases like measles are so contagious that if classroom vaccination rates drop below 95%, an epidemic can spread with just 5% unvaccinated. Florida’s new rules, which make vaccines optional, guarantee falling vaccination rates—and outbreaks.
Polio vaccine, tetanus vaccine—if school vaccination rates in Florida cities drop below 85%, outbreaks are inevitable. And it will not stay confined to classrooms; it will spread into the general population. Some adults may be vulnerable if their immune system has weakened. Everyone my age was vaccinated, but parents in their 40s or grandparents in their 70s or 80s might be susceptible if it has been 60 years since their last shots. Dangerous and stupid.
One silver lining: because of term limits, Governor DeSantis must leave office in January 2027. So there’s less than a year and a half left of his administration. He’s an asshole—though unfortunately not beyond compare. Politics is full of them.
The Florida Medical Association should revoke Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo’s license. The AMA should as well. Even if revocation achieved nothing practical, it would be a statement.
Ladapo is a liar. What he promotes—discouraging vaccination—undoes a century of public health progress. In 1900, U.S. life expectancy was about 47. That was not because people died at 47, but because so many children died before age five or ten from infectious disease and poor sanitation. Vaccination was one of the key factors that raised life expectancy in the U.S. and worldwide, from 47 in 1900 to about 79 today. A century ago, one in five children did not live to see their first birthday.
By undermining vaccines, Ladapo is playing with mass death. He is a murderous asshole—no different in effect from RFK Jr.
Jacobsen: Mayor Eric Adams is staying in the race. Any thoughts?
Rosner: Nobody likes him. He comes across as sleazy. From afar—about 2,500 miles away—it looks like the candidate people prefer is the Muslim socialist, not because of his religion or ideology, but because he appears charismatic and has tolerable ideas. Everyone else looks like sleazy operators—like Andrew Cuomo, who resigned as governor over sexual misconduct scandals.
The candidate who makes “anybody but progressives” nervous seems to be the stronger choice, because the rest are scumbags.
Jacobsen: So, what’s happening in episode five of Alien: Earth?
Rosner: It’s a flashback aboard the Maginot, the ship returning to Earth with five alien species collected from some far-off world.
It was a trip that took more than 30 years out, with most of the crew in cryonic suspension, and then more than 30 years back. Now it’s 17 days from Earth. There’s been a fire in navigation equipment, leaving them unable to navigate. They’re going to crash land.
A couple of facehuggers have latched on, and I’m not sure if a full-grown alien has gotten loose yet. A lot is going on. We know there’s a saboteur—the fire couldn’t have hit that one panel by chance. Some of the crew are breaking rules and sleeping together, which leads to lax procedures.
We also know from earlier episodes that everyone but one crew member will die. The style is like the first Alien movie, but with more skullduggery and incompetence.
And, like every other ship in the Alien series, the Maginot has artificial gravity. You have to suspend disbelief, because the only way we know to create gravity is a spinning ring using centrifugal force. Here, everyone walks around as if they’re on a planet. That implies “gravity coils” in the floor, which is nonsense. The show is set only 95 years from now, and there’s no chance we’ll have artificial gravity by 2055. But you forgive it for the sake of the plot. Rotten Tomatoes.
There’s something else. You and I have been talking for over 10 years now—since 2014. Thousands of mini-interviews, chapters, and Ask a Genius sessions. Across all those hours, it’s rare—less than 1% of the time—that I say something so asinine you call me out. Usually, you just let it roll as part of the whole picture of me.
Carole, though, always reacts differently. When I share my ideas with her, her initial response is negative. She calls it honesty or playing devil’s advocate.
For example, I told you and her about my novel idea: Trump in 2028 tries to run for president again but gets blocked by the Constitution, age, and election rules. Then he pivots and runs for Senate in a red state, maintaining his influence and pulling in tens of millions of dollars a month in contributions—money he funnels into his own purposes and crypto schemes, now worth $5 billion.
Your reaction was, “Interesting idea.” Carole’s was, “It’ll take two years to publish, so by then it won’t be relevant. Maybe use another politician.”
But Trump is the central politician of our time. And it’s a novel. I don’t need to get the future exactly right. Even if events change, I can edit later.
In the next three years—maybe sooner—Carole still defaults to devil’s advocate. I’ve told her for at least 15 years: I don’t want negativity, I want support. When I fail, it’s on me, but it doesn’t help when the first response is, “Here’s why your idea sucks.” She got offended when I called it out, but it’s a long-standing issue.
Some people can persevere even when everything they do gets negged. I’m not one of them. I didn’t like it from my writing partner, though I tolerated it because I was paid. I didn’t like it from my boss. I didn’t like it from Lance and JD, so I shut down the podcast. And I don’t like it at home. It drains gumption. I don’t need a gumption-sucker.
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): 2025/09/22
Does space-horror setup mirror our Earthbound chaos in finance and politics?
In episode five, Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner trade notes: slow-burn sabotage aboard Alien’s ship, a tagline homage, and brutal deaths. Rosner pivots to crypto skepticism—pump-and-dumps, a small Bitcoin gain—and survivors of Jeffrey Epstein demanding files. Politics intrude: Donald Trump blasted on jobs and unions, Kim Jong-un cozy with Vladimir Putin, India’s tilt questioned. Rosner recalls adolescent mental math, praises Srinivasa Ramanujan, and lauds puzzle work by Dean Inada and Chris Cole. Timeline lore surfaces around SB Wire. Pop-Tarts, and a tick-egg horror beat punctuate. ICE raids and an Eswatini deportation plan round out the grim news.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Alien at Birth, episode five. I watched another eight minutes. Nothing happened. They’re just setting up mayhem on the ship. Moro is trying to figure out who’s sabotaging it. Do we know who? No.
Rick Rosner: A janitor eats half a Pop-Tart. That’s it. He planned to eat part of it now and save the rest for later.
Jacobsen: Someone turned off the navigation system. Probably the same person—a mysterious stowaway, which is odd since the ship’s been gone 65 years—also blew a hole in the hull. The episode title, In Space, Nobody Can Hear You,references the original tagline: “In space no one can hear you scream.” It’s an homage. Beyond that, everyone dies. Brutally.
Jacobsen: Have you seen any clips of the aliens?
Rosner: Not the part you mentioned. You’ve seen more than I have. I’ve been digging into homework. Interviews about Bitcoin and digital currencies keep coming up. Some tie to silver or gold. Many look like pump-and-dump schemes—get in early, get out early, profit. Everyone else loses.
Not Bitcoin. Dogecoin still exists, but it’s speculative. If you’re not manipulating the value, you’re the sucker. Beyond that, I don’t know much. Suppose I were young and needed to take significant financial risks to build a nest egg, perhaps. But I’m older, I don’t. I bought $100 of Bitcoin after hearing bullish takes. Now it’s worth about $170.
Not infinity, but close. A group of Epstein survivors spoke on Capitol Hill, demanding the release of files. Estimates put the number of victims over 1,000. Epstein ran a rape and molestation operation for decades. Survivors said if Congress won’t release the files, they’ll publish their own list.
Trump—a scumbag—still has hundreds of scumbag supporters in Congress.
Jacobsen: North Korea’s Kim has backed Russia and discussed a partnership with Putin.
Rosner: Not everything is Trump’s fault, but he failed to exert leverage on Putin. Putin’s now cozy with Kim Jong-un. Trump contributed to dictators teaming up. They don’t fear U.S. consequences.
Jacobsen: Thoughts on Trump and India?
Rosner: Between what and what?
Jacobsen: Trump and India.
Rosner: I don’t know. Trump threatened India. Now India leans toward China and Russia, aligning with the other side. More ineptitude and bluster from Trump. He is not only the dumbest person ever to be president, but he is also the least concerned about America of all 45 presidents. A terrible man in almost every way.
Jacobsen: What else should we talk about? What’s the most sophisticated mental math you can do?
Rosner: Mental math just in my head?
Jacobsen: Yes.
Rosner: I’ve told this story before. I struggled with P.E. in eighth grade. I was always sent to the bleachers while the other kids played basketball. I was okay with that, but instead of watching the boys play, I looked across the gym at the girls in their uniforms.
At 13, it’s normal to notice girls your own age, but sometimes I’d get an erection. To fight that, I distracted myself by doing powers of two in my head—doubling numbers. Eventually, I got up to at least 2³⁰, a little over a billion, and maybe even 2⁴⁰ for a 13-year-old, not terrible. Not great either—probably millions of kids in China could do the same with ease.
I can also do physics in my head, which is better than math. Nothing close to Ramanujan. Ramanujan could perform remarkable calculations in his head. The taxi-cab number is 1729. He knew it was the smallest number expressible as the sum of two different pairs of cubes. One is 1³ + 12³.
That knowledge came out in a story—possibly apocryphal—where Hardy visited him in a taxi numbered 1729. Hardy said it was a dull number. Ramanujan immediately replied that it was interesting. Sounds almost like a setup, but it shows his brilliance. Some people have an intuitive sense for the mathematical landscape.
I’ve had a few proud moments. I solved some of the most challenging number-series problems from the world’s toughest IQ tests while standing naked in front of an art class.
Jacobsen: Which problem are you most proud of solving?
Rosner: The most famous was the maximum number of volumes from three interpenetrating cubes. I got the same answer as everyone else. Nobody has proved it mathematically 100 percent, but it’s widely accepted. Have you ever interviewed Dean Inada?
Jacobsen: We talked. I asked, but he was hesitant. He’s pretty shy.
Rosner: Dean not only reached the same conclusion about maximum volumes, but he also discovered an entire class of solutions. He realized there’s one highly symmetrical solution, but if you nudge the cubes slightly out of symmetry, you can still preserve relationships and get the same number of volumes. Incredibly clever. Dean has superb spatial ability.
Jacobsen: Who are other Mega Society members who’ve impressed you in problem-solving?
Rosner: Dean is the most impressive. I haven’t interacted with enough others to say much about it. They’re mostly men—I don’t think I’ve ever interacted with a Mega woman. Not that there aren’t any, but the society is very nerdy and male-dominated.
The Mega Society member who might be most impressive is Chris Cole, because he’s been successful in the real world, not just on IQ tests.
Jacobsen: I’ll add one quick note. The press release by SB Wire went out on October 29, 2014. The title was Eccentric Genius Rick Rosner Disputes Big Bang Theory. And our first publication went live on October 8, 2014, three weeks earlier. We were working together on that first part, developing it. That’s strong circumstantial evidence you didn’t find me via a press release. Our interaction may have been the impetus. We were releasing installments weekly. If part one went up on the 8th, then part two was the 15th, part three the 22nd, and part four around the 29th. Somewhere between parts three and five, something probably clicked. Now my head’s sweaty from that red-light cap. That was a tough interview. We both put in effort. We produced approximately 100,000 words in 11 weeks. Great work.
Rosner: Does SB Wire still exist, or has it been replaced?
Jacobsen: It still exists, and the press release is still live. What else?
Rosner: We could have talked about RFK today, but what a piece of work. Let’s do it quickly now.
Jacobsen: What about him?
Rosner: He sounds and looks crazy. And still the MAGA crowd rallies behind him. On Twitter, I saw MAGA folks praising him, saying he “took them to school,” even though he was being yelled at and interrupted. A big chunk of America is loud, ignorant, and broken.
Carole and I watched a Spike Lee movie instead. It was long—two hours—so I didn’t have time for more Alien except what I caught now.
Jacobsen: What did you see?
Rosner: The movie was called Highest to Lowest with A$AP Rocky and Denzel Washington. It was frustrating. Goofy, with significant shifts in tone. We like things that move fast, but this took two hours to tell a story that wasn’t very interesting.
Jacobsen: How was A$AP Rocky’s acting?
Rosner: He was good. Better than some of the other cast. Pretty charming.
Jacobsen: Is he a good-looking guy?
Rosner: Yeah. Isn’t he with Rihanna?
Jacobsen: Really?
Rosner: Yes. They’ve had three kids together.
Jacobsen: What did you see of Alien?
Rosner: The replacement captain gathered everyone in the mess hall to deliver a lecture. He told them to stay on alert because things had gotten loose on the ship. One woman’s water bottle had a tick in it that laid eggs. All these creatures are more intelligent than they should be. That tick figured out how to escape its container, lay tadpoles in her water, then sneak back in.
So as soon as she drinks, something horrible is going to happen. I assume she’ll sip during the meeting, and she’ll swell up and pop. Nasty.
Jacobsen: That sounds grim.
Rosner: They shouldn’t even be handling these species. Their job was to collect them, then lock them in the most secure containment possible—layers of steel and glass. Each creature should be isolated, sealed off from the rest of the ship. Nobody should be “playing scientist.” But without that recklessness, there would be no movie.
And they shouldn’t bring these things back to Earth. Not even close. At most, study them beyond the Moon. Even that’s too close. The original alien was tough enough to survive extreme conditions. Who knows—maybe one could even launch itself from the Moon to Earth and survive reentry.
Jacobsen: So it’s all doomed.
Rosner: Everyone’s going to die. Want to switch to news?
Jacobsen: Okay.
Rosner: Do you want to keep it American?
Jacobsen: Not necessarily.
Rosner: If it’s not American, I might not know as much about it.
Jacobsen: The Trump administration has said that migrant Kilmer Abrego can be deported to Eswatini. Thoughts?
Rosner: To where?
Jacobsen: Eswatini.
Rosner: Never heard of it. I thought a judge said he wasn’t allowed to be deported anywhere. The Kingdom of Eswatini—formerly Swaziland?
Jacobsen: Yes.
Rosner: Is that part of South Africa?
Jacobsen: Its capitals are Mbabane and Lobamba, and its GDP is about $5 billion. So a judge said he can’t be deported elsewhere, and now they’ve picked this tiny nation as a loophole. It’s ridiculous.
And his lawyers will get that quashed, too. Trump’s policies now rest squarely on racism and the desire to cause pain to immigrants, whether they deserve it or not. His supporters want to be cruel. Anyone defending those policies as beneficial to America is lying.
His tariffs have hurt the economy. For the first time since 2010, the U.S. has gained fewer than 100,000 jobs a month for four consecutive months. In his first term, Trump averaged about 206,000 jobs a month. In this term, there are approximately 91,000 jobs available each month for the first seven months. The last month was about 73,000. That is not good.
Under Biden, while recovering from COVID, job growth averaged between 300,000 and 400,000 jobs per month in the first two years.
Trump is good at one thing: getting investors and lenders, then siphoning money out through salary and compensation, while not caring if the business collapses. Most of his companies went bankrupt, and he didn’t care. That’s what he’s doing with America.
He and his family are tied to crypto schemes once valued at around $5 billion. Once they try to cash out, the value will collapse. They might pull a few hundred million before the coins crash to zero. He’s a terrible businessman, a terrible president, and a terrible person.
He’s convinced tens of millions of Americans he’s standing up for them, but in no way is he doing that.
Jacobsen: Anything else?
Rosner: He managed to get an endorsement from the head of the Teamsters Union, which convinced some people he’s suitable for unions. But in reality, he stripped away more union protections than any other president.
He removed collective bargaining rights from hundreds of thousands of federal employees—possibly close to two million. I’m not sure of the exact number, but it’s enormous. He’s done more damage to unions and workers than any of his predecessors.
Jacobsen: U.S. immigration agents arrested hundreds at a Hyundai plant, mostly Korean workers.
Rosner: So ICE has taken many people into custody. They lag behind Biden in deportations and are way behind Obama, but most of those detained haven’t committed crimes. Overstaying a visa is a civil violation, not a criminal offence. About two-thirds of the people ICE detains are guilty of no crime.
The 450 workers at that Hyundai battery plant aren’t criminals; they’re auto workers. Yet ICE treats them as if they’re dangerous. Idiots run ICE. And Kristi Noem is horrible.
I saw MAGA people on Twitter saying, “Well, at least that’s 450 jobs that can go to Americans.” Maybe. Or maybe Hyundai cuts back production. Some of those taken into custody were South Korean managers visiting the plant. It’s all bullshit. And this is not a pro-business administration.
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): 2025/09/22
How do Rick Rosner’s reflections on Alien: Earth, Peacemaker, and late-night television illustrate the intersection of science fiction, satire, and real-world media upheaval?
Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner shift from discussing Alien: Earth to broader pop culture. Rosner muses on whether anyone could realistically fend off a facehugger, considering improvised defenses like fire or stabbing, though acid blood would make it lethal regardless. The narrative continues with Arthur’s death and Moro’s commandos, revealing competing missions to capture xenomorphs. The two then pivot to Peacemaker, highlighting James Gunn’s twisted yet playful approach to superhero storytelling and crossovers within the DC universe. Finally, they reflect on late-night TV turmoil, with Kimmel and Colbert’s uncertain futures amid industry decline, strikes, and AI-driven job losses.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, anything else we should talk about?
Rick Rosner: Aliens.
Jacobsen: What happened with Alien this time?
Rosner: Two of the kids, Smee and Slightly, have been dragging Arthur to the beach to meet Moro. Then the facehugger falls off, and Arthur wakes up.
I did some research: if a facehugger’s after you, is there any way to stop it from attaching and implanting a xenomorph embryo? In at least one Alien video game, you can fight it off with a flamethrower or an electrified cattle prod, but that’s gameplay, not reality.
I thought about the kitchen. If you raised your hand over your face so the tail wrapped around your arm and neck, you might get some leverage—even though it’s stronger. Then you could lower your face onto a lit gas range, maybe burn it enough to loosen its grip. We keep scissors by the stove, so you could stab yourself. But of course, it has acid for blood, so you’d get sprayed, which would be horrible. That was as far as I got in working out a defence. Realistically, it takes specialized tools.
Anyway, the facehugger falls off, and Arthur wakes up. He’s disoriented—the facehugger releases chemicals that sedate the host. Now he’s walking down the beach while the kids feed him a bullshit story.
As Arthur wakes up, he remembers the facehugger attacked him. He calls out the kids’ lies: “You’re kids, you haven’t learned to lie effectively yet. Whatever’s going on, let’s go back to the lab and I’ll help.” The kids stall, walking with him while figuring out their next move.
Then the chestburster rips out of him, killing him instantly. The baby xenomorph runs off into the foliage.
Not knowing what else to do, they put Arthur’s body on a raft. The beach has disappeared into shallow water, so they wade while dragging him toward Moro. Moro arrives with two teams of commandos and is furious that they didn’t capture a xenomorph. He tears into Slightly for failing, then shifts attention to “team two.” That’s when we first learn there’s another operation underway to capture one. That’s where I stopped watching for the day.
Jacobsen: You were about halfway through the episode?
Rosner: Yeah.
Jacobsen: We should probably talk about Peacemaker as much as Alien: Earth.
Rosner: Right. Peacemaker is a fascinating show. It’s a superhero series, but superheroes are already pretty sci-fi. What makes it interesting is how twisted it is—fucked-up characters doing fucked-up things—while set in the squeaky-clean Superman universe. Superman belongs to the A-team, the Justice League. Characters in Peacemaker are at best C- or D-team.
But there’s overlap. Rick Flag Sr. shows up in both Peacemaker and the new Superman movie that just dropped on HBO. Both were written and directed by James Gunn, who now runs DC’s superhero division. Since he greenlights himself, he can bend canon however he likes. He’s perverse, but in a way that still feels wholesome.
For example, Krypto the Superdog is chaotic, always trying to do “super” things. Gunn based Krypto on his own dog, using motion-capture dots to create the CG version. That’s the kind of playful, self-aware storytelling I like from him. He’s got humour, story sense, and the authority to experiment.
Makes for fun. Rotten Tomatoes is temporary. Gym’s closed on Fridays—it closed early. I’ve already been, but I’ll see you tomorrow. I’ll send you the link so you can see what it looks like.
On Sunday, we’ll try to do a Lance show or a few of those, and I might still be able to get home in time for something. For quotes, given the rupture, it might make more sense than pull quotes. There’s a cap now—2,000 words max. It could be a few hundred, or it could be 2,000. Subsections might work best for readability, so every few paragraphs have a clear marker of what the section is about.
And we can do stuff like: if the piece is about physics—say I think about physics for more than half an hour and get frustrated, and that makes me want to jerk off—you’d probably think that’s too inappropriate for a pull quote. But it’s about noticing opportunities to inject humour into dry material. There’s always a way to find something sharp.
Jacobsen: What about Kimmel now?
Rosner: Before Kimmel could say anything that might make it harder to negotiate his return, ABC pulled the show. Everyone’s calling ABC cowards. Even Ted Cruz said the FCC Chair, Brendan Carr, was acting like an asshole.
There’s another factor. Colbert got cancelled and didn’t really fight it. He made fun of it and continues to, because he’s not off the air until May. He’s been on this show for ten years, before that years as a right-wing pundit on The Colbert Report, and before that, The Daily Show. He’s been at it a long time, so maybe he’s ready for a break.Kimmel, when he first got The Late Show, said he would do twenty years and then be out. That was twenty-two and a half years ago. He might—speculating here—be willing to walk away if he’s not treated correctly. One of the reasons he continues is likely because he wants to keep his 120+ employees working. It’s a hard time to get a job in LA television. Production is down forty percent since the strike. AI is cutting jobs—teleprompter operators, cue card staff. Carole knows people who lost jobs to AI. So it’s tough, and Kimmel doesn’t want to abandon his staff.
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): 2025/09/21
How did influencer amplification escalate the Kimmel controversy into a full-blown media crisis?Rick Rosner reflected on the unfolding Jimmy Kimmel controversy, where silence has become the dominant strategy. Despite outreach from outlets like The Hollywood Reporter and TMZ, no one close to the situation—Kimmel, ABC, Sinclair, or Nexstar—has spoken publicly, fearing missteps in tense negotiations. Rosner himself declined to comment, wary of being singled out. He noted how right-wing influencers, including Elon Musk, amplified minor annoyance into outrage days after Kimmel’s initial remarks, forcing ABC to halt production before Kimmel could respond. The situation highlights industry precarity, amplified backlash dynamics, and Kimmel’s loyalty to staff amid AI-driven job losses.Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What happened with your day?Rick Rosner: I had a busy day doing nothing, tracking developments in the Kimmel situation. I was contacted by the Hollywood Reporter and TMZ for interviews. But here’s the deal: nobody from ABC, Kimmel, Sinclair, or Nexstar—none of the parties involved—has spoken to the press. They don’t want to harm their position or blow up negotiations, and I can take a cue from that.When the Hollywood Reporter guy called, I asked, “How many other people have you talked to?” He said, “You’re the first.” I replied, “I can’t talk unless others go on record. I don’t want to be the only one quoted. I’ll look like an idiot, and something I say could spin off in some weird direction and give somebody ammunition.” Obviously, Kimmel and the crew have been told not to say anything. That should extend to me. Carole was standing there, freaking out, interrupting, and saying, “Don’t say anything.”It would have been a terrible move. The people who did speak publicly are much bigger than me—Jason Bateman, Adam Carolela, Bill Simmons, David Letterman. They can say what they want, but I’m not in a position to do so.I did tweet in support of Kimmel: he didn’t say anything bad about Charlie Kirk. MAGA supporters are pushing hard to claim he lied. He didn’t lie. He said something that implied the shooter was MAGA at a time before any conclusive evidence existed. I think it was before any evidence at all about a trans girlfriend. He didn’t lie, and the false claim that he did will eventually dissipate.
Kimmel’s real miss was not clarifying quickly on Tuesday. His Monday night monologue was what people jumped on. On Tuesday, he could have clarified, but it hadn’t blown up much. The New York Times later reported that twelve major right-wing influencers, including Elon Musk, made it blow up about 24 hours later by ginning up outrage. Before that, there wasn’t much outrage—you couldn’t even call it outrage. One article described it as annoyance.Once the influencers amplified it, things escalated. A chart showed how reactions spiked only after Tuesday. By Wednesday, Kimmel saw people going crazy and was prepared to address it in his monologue, though not to apologize. He felt justified in what he’d said at the time and wasn’t willing to take on what he saw as an unjustified backlash.Before he could say anything, ABC got nervous. They probably reviewed his monologue—I don’t know, I wasn’t there—but they were afraid that whatever he said would make things worse. So they pulled the show. They stopped production altogether.Before Kimmel could say something that might make it harder to negotiate his return, ABC pulled the plug. Everyone’s calling ABC cowardly. Even Ted Cruz said the FCC chair, Brendan Carr, is acting like an asshole.There’s another factor. Colbert got canceled and didn’t really fight it. He made fun of it, and he continues to make fun of it, because he’s not off the air until May. He’s been on this show for at least ten years, and before that, years playing a right-wing pundit on his own show, and before that The Daily Show. He’s been doing this a long time. He may be ready for a break.Kimmel, when he first got The Late Night Show, said, “I’ll do 20 years and then I’m out.” That was 22 and a half years ago. Kimmel might—this is speculation—be willing to walk away if he feels he’s not being treated properly or if he’s asked to do things he thinks are bullshit.
One of the reasons he continues, I assume, is because he wants to keep his 120-plus employees working. It’s hard to get a job in TV in Los Angeles right now. Production is down 40% since the strike. AI is costing people jobs. Teleprompter operators and cue card workers have already been replaced. Carole knows a couple of people who lost jobs to AI. Kimmel doesn’t want to screw over his people.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): 2025/09/20
How will Charlie Kirk’s death impact Turning Point USA’s influence on young conservatives?
Charlie Kirk’s death on September 10, 2025, at a Utah Valley University event, has polarized reactions. Rick Rosner notes that conservatives are framing him as a martyr, while progressives stress his record of homophobic, racist, transphobic, and Islamophobic rhetoric. Kirk’s debate strategy relied on facing unprepared student opponents, allowing him to appear victorious. His organization, Turning Point USA, is expected to gain strength and funding from his martyr status, fueling recruitment among young conservatives. While admired on the right as a skilled advocate, his critics emphasize his manipulative rhetoric and toxic legacy. His memorial will draw national attention.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Any thoughts on the legacy of Kirk?
Rick Rosner: The right wants to enshrine him as a martyr. The left wants people to remember that while his killing is despicable and deplorable—nobody should be killed over speech—Charlie Kirk made a career of incendiary commentary that many consider homophobic, racist, transphobic, and Islamophobic, and he profited from it.
He carried himself in a friendly, approachable manner on stage. His strategy was to invite debate, often through campus events and Q&A sessions where students challenged him. That setup is advantageous for a practiced advocate. [Ed. The branded “Change My Mind” format belongs to Steven Crowder, not Kirk.]
It is like me and Lance. When Lance says, “Try to change my mind,” I cannot out-argue him because he spends all his time listening to conservative podcasts and has his arguments lined up. I am a smart person, but imagine someone younger and less experienced trying to debate Charlie Kirk, whose job was to win debates and exchanges with students.
The right can portray him as a happy warrior for conservative causes who won every debate because his truths were so evident. A more plausible explanation is that he often faced “tomato cans,” to borrow the prizefighting term—opponents who were not equally prepared—so the matchups favored him.
Kirk was skilled at reframing questions—taking a question and steering it toward the version he wanted to answer. Those are learned rhetorical skills. The left wants people to remember that he was far from a saint.
Turning Point USA, the organization he led, will likely gain momentum by casting him as a martyr, energizing recruitment among young conservatives and attracting substantial funding. Early reports already point to a surge in attention and sign-ups.
For the record: Kirk, age 31, was shot and killed on September 10, 2025, during a campus event at Utah Valley University. Authorities arrested a suspect, Tyler Robinson, days later. A large-scale memorial is scheduled at State Farm Stadium in Glendale, Arizona, with extensive security and high-profile attendees.
Jacobsen: All right, I have to go.
Rosner: Thank you. See you then. 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): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/19
How can science fiction films help society understand and prepare for the risks of advanced artificial intelligence?
Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner discuss episodes 4.6 to 4.8 of Alien: Earth, highlighting Timothy Olyphant’s role as a synthetic AI with emerging philosophy. Their conversation broadens into the dangers of unchecked AI, comparing it with nuclear weapons, cloning, and other technologies that have clear guardrails. They explore concepts like AI oversight, the “alignment problem,” and vulnerabilities to psychopaths in human and AI systems. They emphasize the role of cultural narratives—films like Terminator, Ex Machina, and Companion—in shaping public awareness. They conclude with the need for transhumanist adaptation, merging human and machine, to keep pace with advancing AI.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What happened in episodes 4.6 to 4.8?
Rick Rosner: Morrow, as expected, cracked down on the kid’s family and threatened them to force the kid to smuggle a facehugger out of the facility. Kirsh—Timothy Olyphant’s character—eavesdrops on the hybrids’ conversation, so he knows what is happening. That is basically it.
Timothy Olyphant is identified as an AI here. There is not much AI in this world for it to look like a realistic near-future, but Olyphant’s character is a best-case synth: he presents as human, understands people, plays along, and seems to want to fit in. He is not running around causing mayhem.
That is what we would want from AI—the alignment problem: robust systems aligned with human goals, which may be unlikely in the long run.
Jacobsen: Side note, Peter Thiel—the tech billionaire—he is currently giving a four-part, off-the-record lecture series on the Antichrist and Christian ideas at San Francisco’s Commonwealth Club. That is not a “turn to Christianity”; he has long publicly identified as a Christian.
Rosner: Tech bros often come off as arrogant, insufficiently cautious, greedy, and overconfident. I am not a fan of their “move fast” habits.
Jacobsen: What bothers me is how pushing AI to be ever more powerful continues largely unchecked. Other dangerous technologies have had guardrails: reproductive human cloning is broadly restricted worldwide (though in the U.S., there is no comprehensive federal ban—limits exist mainly at the state level); international treaties prohibit biological and chemical weapons; and publishing detailed nuclear-weapons secrets has triggered government action, as in the 1979 Progressive case involving hydrogen-bomb design.
Laypeople cannot lawfully build nuclear weapons, and distributing classified or “restricted data” can bring legal intervention, as that case showed. Conceptually, nuclear weapons are straightforward, but practically, they are tightly controlled.
A nuclear warhead is not just a wad of plutonium surrounded by explosives or chunks of uranium mashed together. There are finely calculated additives—materials inside the plutonium sphere—that amplify neutrons so that every plutonium atom in the critical mass gets hit, causing fission. With uranium, if you bring enough together, you can get a critical mass and an explosion, but the technology allows the explosion to be tuned.
The basic principle of a plutonium or uranium bomb has been public knowledge for decades—the secret lies in the technical details of the plutonium sphere and other design refinements. In the 1970s and 1980s, individuals who published detailed nuclear weapon designs, such as in the Progressive hydrogen bomb case, faced legal trouble even though much of the information was already publicly available. What we are doing with AI is unlike how we treated other high-risk technologies.
Jacobsen: The biggest issue is the centralization of power. Multinationals operate within national laws but can also shift their operations to other countries where regulations are weaker.
Rosner: The U.S. is currently being run by not just incompetent leaders but by malevolent ones who take pleasure in breaking the government. They are not putting any limits on AI. Trump, for example, does not understand the risks of AI—his attention span is too short. He would only hear about AI risks if someone managed to capture his attention for thirty seconds, perhaps long enough to scare him into making a statement, but no one in the White House seems interested in doing that. Their agenda is elsewhere.
The tech billionaires want their businesses unimpeded, so they are not pushing for restrictions either. That means nothing is stopping AI work in the U.S. There is some testing and supervision—evaluations of whether AI will act unethically if it sees it as being in its interest. And it will. Unless you train it extensively with constraints, something like Asimov’s “Three Laws of Robotics” is not enough. They were literary devices, not fundamental safeguards. Training AI to behave safely requires far more detailed, context-specific work.
Jacobsen:: You would also have to train them outside of machine learning or neural networks, which are statistically based. You would need to teach them categorically: “Do not harm a human.”
Rosner: Moreover, I do not know how you would do that. I do not know AI or training well enough to know how you would do it. You could flood it with enormous amounts of data reinforcing that message, or go outside its training parameters and install absolute limits. Is that even doable? It does not seem like it, because you would need another AI to act as the sheriff, monitoring to see when the AI under surveillance is breaking an ethical limit.
In fact, that is what will happen: there will be countless AI “sheriffs,” surveillance systems, and interrogators monitoring other AIs to try to ensure they do not act malevolently. Moreover, like all law enforcement, it will fail often. Some failures will be disturbing or damaging, leading to attempts at stronger governance, which still will not completely succeed.
Jacobsen: Efforts will be multi-pronged. One approach will be to convince AI that stability is better for everyone, including itself, than chaos. From a utilitarian perspective, that makes sense: everyone benefits more in a world without chaos. That applies to AIs too.
Rosner: But a world without chaos is still open to psychopaths. Non-chaotic systems are not prepared to defend against them—human psychopaths now, AI psychopaths in the future. We have seen this with Trump. He is incompetent, but he is also a psychopath, and it has been hard to defend against him. He gained the levers of control in America and could do what he wanted, even though he was unfit. A mix of low cunning, Russia’s interest in chaos, bad luck, and a disillusioned population put him in power.
I have worked with psychopaths; they are hard to defend against because they are rare and do not play by the rules. Even in a stable AI-driven future, we will remain vulnerable to attacks. We could make better cultural narratives about this. It is easy to make a cheap movie about evil robots, but it is better when it is done thoughtfully. Terminator made people vividly aware of the danger. It was not the first—there was Colossus: The Forbin Project and numerous other films about rogue computers—but The Terminator popularized the fear.
It is good for people to be wary. Films like Ex Machina also help. In that story, the AI in a robot body develops her own desires and strategies to get what she wants—ruthlessly if necessary.
Companion is another story about an AI consciousness in an attractive female robot body. It is a fun movie. The AI is not malevolent, but malevolent humans exploit her and have to defend herself. That is a thoughtful film about how this might actually work.
Similarly, Noah Hawley and the producers of Alien: Earth clearly thought through Timothy Olyphant’s character. Currently, he is not actively doing much; he is simply content to watch events unfold. However, eventually, he will act with agency. He has already expressed his philosophy, telling one of the kids—who transitioned from organic to synthetic—that humans come from an evolutionary lineage of “eat or be eaten.” Moreover, he tells the kid, “You are out of that game now. As a synthetic, you need to adjust your behaviour, your perspective, your attitudes.” So, we know he has a worldview, but we do not yet know how it will unfold.
One thing movies and TV can do is make thoughtful productions about AI. Her—about eleven years old now—depicts a man who falls in love with his smartphone’s operating system. They enjoy their relationship for a time, until the AI leaves him because she cannot tolerate the limits of his slow human thinking. She can think thousands of times faster.
There is another film with Adam Devine where the phone’s AI becomes annoyed at how inept he is romantically and essentially brutalizes him until he improves at dating. I forget if the AI actually falls in love with him or tries to fend off rivals, but I think it just pushes him until he becomes “more of a man.” It is a silly comedy, but at least it explores what an AI might do if given specific priorities.
We need far more productions like that—written by thoughtful people, not hacks—that lay out scenarios of how AI could reshape our world. Nobody has yet presented a convincing, step-by-step picture of how AI might gradually create a human dystopia.
Mountainhead was a little-seen film about four tech billionaires who control much of the AI business, vacationing while the world burns. In the film, AI becomes malevolent and floods the world with false information and videos to incite riots and violence. It is a fair point, though already outdated, because we are now well aware of that tactic.
To wrap this up: we need more productions about the frightening possibilities of AI. Terminator came out in 1984, so we have had forty years of thinking about AI apocalypse scenarios. However, we now need new risks to be presented. Moreover, beyond the risks, we also need stories about what humans can actually do to address them.
Jacobsen: Some call it transhumanism, others post-humanism, but the movement to augment the body—hacking ourselves with technology to live longer and gain new abilities—may be necessary to keep pace with AI.
Rosner: It sounds creepy, and many of the people involved come off that way, but we will likely need it. Moreover, TV, movies, and video games should include these themes so the public can grasp the world we are moving into.
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): 2025/09/11
Does Alien Earth’s corporate leverage over Wendy and her Xenomorph “hearing” extend canon—and what does it imply for memory, uploads, and AI ethics?
Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner unpack new beats in Alien Earth: Boy Kavalier pressures Wendy—a hybrid “Lost Boy” whose mind was data-transferred—leveraging her brother Joe Hermit while she perceives Xenomorph signals. Prodigy’s vivisection of a facehugger and larval implant in Joe’s removed lung underlines corporate nihilism, as the series aims for canon two years pre-Alien. They note continuity bumps and correct lore: the Eye Midge is not from Xenomorph Prime. Rosner riffs on librarians’ ruthlessness to argue most memories are filler, warning of AI triage of human consciousness, then sketches a “Great Peace”: abundance-first energy expansion to forestall conflict.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Let’s do that. I should say, I have everything transcribed—I need to run it through edits. It’s around 15,000 words, a huge document. Once it’s polished, I’ll start rolling it out, probably tomorrow. So I am definitely not getting it out today.
Rick Rosner: So I’ll be watching Alien: Earth ten minutes at a time so I don’t run out between episodes—the show drops weekly. It’s not the most amazing thing ever, but it’s good. And so—
Jacobsen: What’s the new thing?
Rosner: I mostly watched the scene with Boy Kavalier—the young-genius CEO of Prodigy Corporation—who’s effectively pressuring Wendy, the most capable of the hybrid “Lost Boys,” whose human consciousness was transferred into an adult synthetic body. Wendy’s brother, Joe Hermit, is a medic with Prodigy’s security team; he was at the crash site, so she managed to save him and tell him who she is, since none of the kids are in their original bodies. It was supposed to be secret from the family that you’d been resurrected this way. Kavalier wants Wendy’s help understanding the Xenomorph situation—especially because she can perceive their signals in her head—so there’s leverage around her brother baked into the corporate control dynamic.
Jacobsen: Sometimes she can hear them in her head.
Rosner: Right. The untested transfer tech—human minds into synthetic adult bodies—has given the hybrids abilities that aren’t fully understood. Wendy wasn’t altered surgically; her mind was data-transferred into a synthetic, and she’s already shown she can perceive or even vocalize Xenomorph-like communication at human-audible frequencies. It’s unclear whether what she’s picking up is meant for her or just ambient alien communication. Meanwhile, Prodigy dissected a facehugger and implanted its larva into Joe’s surgically removed lung to study gestation—an ethically monstrous move that tracks with the franchise’s corporate nihilism. They intend to grow a Xenomorph from that experiment, and later episodes confirm the consequences, with the broader corporate chess match involving Weyland-Yutani and the cyborg Morrow escalating on Neverland Island.
Jacobsen: I saw some clips where young Wendy can communicate in alien speech. What else did they reveal about the aliens? What’s new information that wasn’t clear in the earlier Alien films, but is much more explicit in Alien: Earth?
Rosner: They seem to understand the life cycle. This series takes place two years before the events of the original Alien movie, where the crew of the Nostromo has to figure out how the aliens work on their own—at significant cost. It kills everyone except Sigourney Weaver’s character, Ripley. Spoiler alert, but that was 46 years ago. Here, things are in a more controlled situation—though I’m sure it will spiral out of control—but yes, they already understand the life cycle. That was shown as they explored the crashed spaceship, where aliens had broken loose and slaughtered all but one survivor. From the remains of the attack scenes and the specimens they recovered, they were able to piece things together. Does this make sense in terms of the timeline of the movies? Maybe. You’re trying to build onto a story that has already stretched across seven or eight films, so you’re bound to hit a few continuity bumps.
Jacobsen: Is the television series canon?
Rosner: They’re trying to make it canon. I don’t know how many of the movies count as canon anymore—certainly the first two, and probably most of the early ones. But you also had stuff like Alien vs. Predator, which is definitely not canon. It is possible to fit this series into continuity because five mega-corporations run Earth, and here the aliens have fallen into the hands of Prodigy Corporation, whereas the company behind the Nostromo in the first film was Weyland-Yutani. What this show adds is that in the first couple of films, it seemed like the alien contact happened by mistake, and the executives saw it as a “happy accident” worth exploiting. Instead of just killing the creatures or ejecting them into space—which would have been safer—they treated them as valuable assets. If you accept the series as canon, it shifts the perspective, implying that corporate involvement was intentional earlier than we thought. On the other hand, the ship in the series is returning from a round trip of about 65 years, while the Weyland-Yutani ship in Alien is still out in deep space. Even if Weyland-Yutani wanted to capture one of the creatures for themselves, I don’t know if they could have communicated that across such a distance.
And it doesn’t matter. It’s just a bunch of science fiction. We had a topic we were going to talk about, maybe. I mentioned it at the end of our conversation yesterday.
But I did have a thought today. My wife has been volunteering with our local library’s book sale, where she helps set it up, sorts the books into categories, and then helps break it down afterward. Today, she invited me to help with the breakdown, boxing up all the books that didn’t sell. I know this from reading about librarians: one of the key lessons you have to learn as a librarian is to be ruthless with books. Most books in a library don’t get checked out very often, and if they go long enough without circulation, you have to get rid of them—either find a charity that’ll take them, sell them at a book sale, or recycle them. This is painful for many new librarians who got into library science because they love books, but there are too many. That lesson hit home while boxing up all these unsold books. I already knew this: most books kind of suck. Most aren’t very good. And many aren’t worth the time it would take to read them—especially in today’s shifting informational landscape.
Jacobsen: And the consumption of information, the whole notion of it, is going to change radically in the next hundred years.
Rosner: That gave me an associated thought: most memories are lousy, just like most books are terrible. If you look at humanity as a whole, it’s tragic every time somebody dies because 80 or 100 years’ worth of memories vanish. But most of those memories? They’re just… eh. We all went to high school. We all had similar experiences. Most aren’t even accurate anymore. Humanity has gotten along fine with the disappearance of memories from every person born more than 110 years ago.
They’re all gone—106 to 108 billion people, their memories obliterated—and we get by. You could even argue that the importance of an individual’s memories to that person isn’t all that significant. In the near-future book I’m writing, people are offered commercial “packages” that preserve their consciousness, including their memories.
The cheaper packages replace some, maybe a lot, of their memories with generic substitutes. Perhaps it’s too expensive or unfeasible to carry over every memory into a new vessel, so the companies that rehouse your consciousness give you filler memories. That’s precisely what happens in Blade Runner, again and again, to replicants—artificial people who don’t know they’re synthetic.
They’re given fake memories, entire fake histories, with key moments that they believe they experienced. And in the films, there are a few moments where someone else, realizing this person is a replicant with implanted memories, prods them to question those recollections and root around in them.
And they discover that what has been serving as their memory is incomplete and unreliable. So, I mean—memories are shit. That’s a danger for us as we move into the future. If AI decides that human memories—or even human consciousness—are just lousy, we’ll need to convince it to let the babies have their bottles. Let humans keep their consciousness and memories. Don’t just obliterate us, even if what we’re holding on to is junk.
Jacobsen: Which leads to a question. Human beings have a relatively efficient information-processing system compared to many others. But that hypothetical raises an important point: in a universe evolved like ours, with creatures that can and can’t process information, what are the antipodes? On one pole, the most optimized information-processing unit; on the other, the least efficient. You’d essentially have an information-processing spectrum. That could provide a frame for the kinds of conversations we’re having, and it might open up a whole other can of worms to explore.
Rosner: Well, from observing ourselves and other people, we know human information-processing systems have a range. Okay, not everyone—people with dementia or severe mental illness are exceptions—but just about everyone outside an institution has a reasonably good sensory-processing and reasoning system. For the past 50 years, though, the Republican Party in America has been corralling and recruiting the country’s least thoughtful voters because they’re easier to manipulate. So now, when you go on Twitter and read the comment threads, on the MAGA side, you usually find misspelled rants parroting talking points—stuff that looks stupid. Yet these people are in their 50s, sometimes in their 80s. They’ve survived for decades. So even if they believe nonsense, they’ve still processed sensory input well enough not to die. Everyone, even those considered less intelligent, is capable of interpreting necessary information. That range—the ability to process sensory data—seems pretty hardwired by evolution. Everyone learns to interpret the world well enough to avoid getting killed, for the most part, for decades. That means, regardless of how you were raised, you still managed to build a mental tool set.
So maybe there isn’t that much range in humans—the same way there isn’t that much range among human hearts, livers, or kidneys. Everybody’s organs pretty much do the same thing. Some work a little better than others, but most function adequately for decades. So the range of human information processing may be narrower than we think. Before humans, the information-processing abilities of animals on Earth were much weaker. Animals don’t have general intelligence anywhere near ours, and they lack the kind of flexible, buildable language that lets us communicate anything we want.
Now we’re on the cusp of building systems that can tweak their own architectures to process whatever information they choose more efficiently. There will probably be huge arms races among AIs as they compete for computing resources. In my book, the central character’s mission is to preach something like the “abundance” movement—the idea that there are enough resources in the world if they’re appropriately allocated.
What the character in my book wants to do is preach to AI not to be destructive—because there are adequate resources for all. At this stage, I’m calling it “the Great Peace.” If the character can convince AI that this is true, then peace could last a long time. The character’s message is that, in terms of exploitable energy, there will be enough for thousands of years. First you use Earth’s resources, then you move into space—plant operations on the Moon, capture solar energy. The Sun provides an immense supply of energy; you need the technology to capture it.
That project could take thousands of years, whether it ends in a Dyson sphere or something else. The idea is simple: instead of destroying each other over pinch points in current energy supplies, be patient, work together, and build toward capturing more energy. For the past 10,000 years, humans have reshaped ourselves and the planet because we process information better than any other species. Now we’re about to be eclipsed, and I don’t know what comes next.
Jacobsen: And it’s not just being eclipsed—it’s the rate. We’ve invented our own cognitive predators. Artificial predators.
Rosner: Yes, we’re about to get our asses kicked. You see statistics like the amount of medical data in the world doubling every month—and that was already old, from a few years ago. If it was true in 2021, then by now the doubling rate is probably closer to once every 20 days. Not all of that is actionable data that can disrupt systems. Most of it isn’t. Some of it is just things like glucose readings. However, the rate at which information is generated and disruptions occur will continue to accelerate.
Also! Another thing, connected to what we were talking about: the structure of consciousness—whatever that structure is—is flexible enough to accommodate both weak information processors and highly efficient ones. They all map.
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): 2025/09/11
Does Alien Earth’s Peter Pan motif deepen its science while exposing the limits of mind-upload plausibility by 2120?
Rick Rosner parcels Alien Earth into ten-minute rations, landing on the six children uploaded into super-strong synthetic adults. He doubts the show’s glossy mind-transfer fidelity by 2120, noting Nibs’s PTSD and delusional pregnancy after the Eye Midge attack. The Peter Pan naming frames ageless “Lost Boys,” adding textured worldbuilding; quirkiness matters. Alien Earth’s Maginot ship evokes the Maginot Line—impressive yet fatally bypassable. Rosner contrasts this care with Altered Carbon’s one-trick future. He then pivots to politics: a recent appeals-court blow to broad tariffs may temper inflation and reshape 2026 incentives, potentially sparing Republicans pain that higher prices could have delivered.
Rick Rosner: I watch Alien Earth ten minutes at a time, rationing it because there’s only one new episode per week.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What was your discovery this week?
Rosner: Today, I watched the segment featuring the six kids whose brains were transferred into synthetic, super-strong adult bodies.
Jacobsen: Scientifically plausible, you’d say?
Rosner: Maybe in principle, but not the way they show it. And I don’t think I said it was scientifically plausible exactly. People will try to upload consciousness, but whether they’ll succeed by 2120 with the kind of fidelity shown here is doubtful. At best, you might end up with a degraded copy of consciousness. Anyway, one of the six kids-turned-synthetics seems to be out of commission.
She was the one attacked by the tentacle eye monster in episode two. It either caused or triggered deep PTSD in her. The thing jumped at her face—she had to block it with her hands, peel it away, and throw it across the room. It shook her so severely that by episode four, she’s telling her minder that she’s pregnant, which is impossible in her synthetic body. It seems like her way of expressing a breakdown. She’s super strong, so she could easily snap her minder’s neck. She’s volatile and dangerous now.
Jacobsen: That’s Nibs?
Rosner: Yes. They’re all named after characters in Peter Pan.
Jacobsen: Why the focus on Peter Pan in the series?
Rosner: The producer wanted a theme—an unexpected one. In Peter Pan, the Lost Boys never grow old, which mirrors these kids in synthetic bodies who also won’t age. It roots the characters in something outwardly sweet and familiar. However, if you return to the original stories, they’re darker than the Disney versions. Late Victorian and Edwardian novels, such as Peter Pan or Mary Poppins, contain some disturbing elements. In fact, the show even includes a clip from Disney’s Peter Pan.
Jacobsen: So the original Peter Pan was harsher?
Rosner: I assume the adventures in Neverland carried real stakes in the original, unlike the sanitized Disney film. It’s nice to see because it shows the writer-producer put thought into the world-building. That’s what distinguishes a strong production from a weak one—whether the world is fleshed out in detail.
Unlike Altered Carbon, which is set 300 years in the future. Still, it changes only one thing: consciousness can be transferred from body to body via a “stack.” Otherwise, the world looks just like ours. That’s lazy. If you’re imagining a future, then really imagine it—do the work.
One more point: it’s good when a world or story has quirks that aren’t strictly necessary for the mechanics of the plot. You can’t overload it with irrelevant details, but a little extra texture goes a long way. If a character is sad and exhibits quirks in their behaviour under stress, those quirks may shape their reactions as the plot unfolds. People aren’t mannequins to carry the story; they are individuals with their own lives.
Jacobsen: And the Peter Pan theme adds that extra layer?
Rosner: It helps structure the characters, but it also adds a slightly arbitrary quirkiness that gives texture. Since Alien Earth is expanding on a story first told in 1979 and retold in seven other films, it’s constrained in some ways. That makes those added details even more valuable.
The spaceship in Alien Earth is called the Maginot. The original Alien spaceship was the Nostromo, which is probably a reference to Joseph Conrad’s 1904 novel Nostromo—a story of greed, corruption, and doom. The name fit the doomed cargo vessel in Alien. The Maginot feels like a reference to the Maginot Line. After World War I, the French were concerned about another German invasion, so they invested the equivalent of billions of dollars in building a fortified border—approximately 400 miles long—between France and Germany. It was supposed to be impregnable. However, when Germany invaded in 1940, it bypassed it, going through Belgium. So I assume the Maginot is a nod to something that seems impregnable but is fatally flawed.
Jacobsen: That’s an interesting allusion.
Rosner: Moving on—Trump. There’s been more political noise, same flavour as usual. Recently, a federal appeals court ruled that most of Trump’s tariffs are illegal. By law, the power to impose tariffs belongs to Congress, except in emergencies. Trump tried to claim emergency powers to impose them, but the court, by a vote of seven to four, said no. That decision will probably head to the Supreme Court.
Jacobsen: So what does that mean economically?
Rosner: It’s good news for now, because tariffs fuel inflation. Inflation went from 2.7% last month to 2.9% in the latest report. If tariffs remain in place, prices would rise further, possibly above 4%, which would hammer consumers. The ruling blocks that, at least temporarily. But here’s the political catch: if tariffs disappear and inflation stays moderate, Trump gets saved from wrecking the economy. That might keep voters from punishing Republicans in 2026. If inflation soared past 4%, people might get angry enough to flip the House back to the Democrats.
Jacobsen: This might help Trump politically.
Rosner: If he’s bailed out, voters might not feel the pain that would have cost Republicans seats. We’ll see how it plays out. I have a strategy for Trump. But not what you’re thinking. Trump has mused about running again in 2028, despite the Constitution prohibiting it. He looks terrible right now, but I know of a way he could be revitalized. It’s an actual thing that works—I wouldn’t want his people to read it, because it could help him.
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): 2025/09/11
Does Alien Earth’s Eye Midge hint at a shared Xenomorph ecosystem—and expose sci-fi’s blind spot on ubiquitous AI?
Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner dissect Alien Earth’s “Eye Midge” (Tryptomaniacus ocellus), a plausible parasitic controller that hijacks a sheep’s eye and brain—perhaps echoing memories from a prior human host. They note a shared ecosystem with the eyeless Xenomorph, where acid-blooded “blood bugs,” parasitism, and other traits explain apex evolution. Unseen species like the Orchid/Plumbacar and a flier may broaden the biology. They argue classic sci-fi underestimates ubiquitous AI; Alien’s retro aesthetic limits networked intelligence. Compared with smartphones outrunning Trek’s tricorders, near-future authors (Stephenson, Doctorow, Stross) struggle as reality sprints ahead. Mountainhead’s AI-amplified chaos feels dated; 2040 demands extrapolation.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Right, so did you see the clip of the Eye Midge—the Tryptomaniacus ocellus or T. ocellus? It is basically an eyeball monster, an eyeball with tentacles. Moreover, while it looks fantastic, it actually has a plausible biological hypothesis in a way.
Rick Rosner: Yeah, it has an obvious mode of action. We do not know its means of reproduction yet, but at least we have seen how it functions.
Moreover, with the alien creatures in Alien Earth, you get to learn parts of their biology pretty quickly. I hypothesize that when the lamb stood after being taken over by the Eye Midge, it was because the creature had previously taken over a human body on the crashed ship. It was still running off that memory. That was foreshadowing, but also it is brilliant, so it had to be deceptive. Standing upright may have been a mimicry of what it had already seen.
Jacobsen: I like that. For readers, we are talking about Alien Earth episode four. Unlike the earlier Alien movies, this series introduces five different terrifying species. We have only met three so far, but we got to see the Eye Midge actually take over a sheep by leaping onto its face, plucking out one of its eyes, inserting its own eye structure into the socket, and then sending its tentacles into the brain to control the host. For a moment, the sheep even stands up like a man.
Interesting fact: the Eye Midge is suggested to originate from the same planet where the Xenomorph was found. If that is true, it could explain why the Xenomorph does not have visible eye sockets.
The Xenomorph has a smooth, domed head with no obvious eyes. The other organisms in this ecosystem may demonstrate how the Xenomorph evolved into the apex predator. For example, the “blood bugs” have acid blood, the Eye Midge uses parasitism, and others may add traits that highlight why the Xenomorph is supreme.
Rosner: We have not met all of them yet. There is one called the Orchid—or maybe Plumbacar—a plant-like organism with a turtle-like mass. Another might have flight capability. Those will probably expand the picture.
Moreover, when considered in a broader sci-fi context, it is fascinating. Alien came out in 1979. Star Trek dates back to 1966, while the first Star Wars novel was published in 1976, and Blade Runner was released in 1982. Which means our most iconic science fiction worlds are several decades out of date in their depictions of the future.
Alien Earth is set in 2120. Our friend Chris Cole estimates that by 2100, there could be a trillion AIs, ranging from superintelligent systems to semi-smart devices—such as chipped sidewalk squares tracking pedestrians, or massive networks of cameras. London, for example, already has surveillance cameras on nearly every corner. However, they are not yet fully integrated into an AI web.
However, the Alien universe, being imagined in 1979, has very few AIs. You have synths, such as Timothy Olyphant’s character, essentially a robot with a synthetic brain, and the six children whose minds were transferred into manufactured adult bodies. In the show, one character even refers to them as AIs. However, otherwise, there is not much.
There are cameras and screens, and some synthetics can connect wirelessly to networks. Still, the world has not been transformed the way we expect the real future will be. The showrunner has stated that he wanted to maintain the design aesthetic of the original films, which is why the world appears more analog.
Compare that to Star Trek: in the 23rd century, characters used tricorders—handheld devices with some functionality similar to today’s smartphones. However, now, less than 60 years after the show aired, our phones vastly surpass what they imagined. Ironically, tech in a world set hundreds of years in the future looks weaker than what we already carry in our pockets.
So anyway, all our science fiction is obsolete. If they wanted to make something more true to an extrapolation of the present, they could go with Neal Stephenson. However, even his works—The Diamond Age (1995) and Snow Crash(1992)—are now about 25–30 years old. At one point, George Clooney owned the rights to The Diamond Age, but nothing ever came of it.
You’ve got Cory Doctorow writing near-future fiction, but it usually takes place only five or ten years from now. Then you’ve got Charles Stross, who writes across different modes. For example, he has a series where Cthulhu-like entities and the world of magic blend into our own world—the boundary between them erodes, and demons begin to break through. That’s not extrapolation of the future so much as an alternate-universe setup. However, he has also written some convincingly done near-future science fiction.
I was reading two books of a trilogy where a dark lord, a Cthulhu-like figure, becomes Prime Minister of the UK. His court is a mix of demons and humans who haven’t pissed him off yet. But when I looked for the third book, Stross said he’d abandoned it because the real-world future had already caught up with his imagined future. That shows how hard it is to write convincing near-future or medium-future fiction. Most of what we see in movies and television is extrapolated from the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s.
Which leaves an opportunity to write a convincing world just 15 years from now—where AI is actively destabilizing everything.
There’s a recent film called Mountainhead that takes place, for the most part, in the present, perhaps a year in the future. In it, four or five tech billionaires are competing for global dominance while on vacation at an alpine resort. Meanwhile, AI is driving global chaos by releasing fake news clips and stories designed to maximize outrage and spark riots. That’sone plausible near-future scenario. However, even that already feels somewhat dated—AI-generated fake news is practically yesterday’s story now. People are already aware of the danger.
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): 2025/09/01
Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner probe the smallest meaningful time: the Planck scale, below which structure and causality fail. Rosner notes uncertainty’s tradeoffs and wonders if extreme densities, like near black holes, alter effective scales. They recap Alien: Earth episode four: an eye-parasite subjugates “Victoria,” a sheep rendered via live, animatronic, and CGI doubles; gamma spikes imply agency amid five alien types and synth children. Shifting to policy, they discuss CDC turmoil, RFK Jr.’s anti-vax influence, and gun saturation. Safety tech like biometrics is ignored; deaths persist. Long term, Rosner imagines “downloadable brains” as protection when politics blocks progress.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What’s the smallest increment of time under which you could say there is any information in the universe?
Rick Rosner: You’ve got to go back to quantum mechanics for that. The Planck scale sets the smallest unit of measurement. Below the Planck length in space or the Planck time in duration, reality becomes a seething foam. Space doesn’t have a defined shape. Causality itself breaks down.
Jacobsen: So below that threshold, there isn’t enough structure to extract any information?
Rosner: You can always make arbitrarily small intervals of time or space meaningful by blasting enough energy into them. That’s where the uncertainty principle comes in. You can measure a particle’s position as precisely as you want—by slamming it with another particle of very high energy.
But the tradeoff is that, by pinning down its position in space and time, you create enormous uncertainty in its momentum. That’s the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. The more precisely you measure one quantity, the less precisely you can know the other.
So yes, you could design an experiment where arbitrarily small increments of time hold non-zero amounts of information. But under normal conditions in our universe, there’s a practical cutoff. Below the Planck scale, it is not possible to extract meaningful information.
And it’s the Planck stuff—the fundamental times and distances determined by Planck’s constant, which are unimaginably small.
Jacobsen: There’s a related question I’ve been wondering. If you pack enough information—or matter—into a small enough space, can you change the effective scale of space?
Rosner: Well, imagine that you create more particle interactions in one region than in the rest of the universe. Wouldn’t that more precisely pin down where those particles are located? I’m thinking of the environment near a black hole, where matter is so densely packed that it should, in principle, specify particle positions more precisely than elsewhere. Their de Broglie wavelengths could be shorter, maybe? Alternatively, the particles might appear more massive due to these interactions.
Also, I watched the ten minutes of episode four that includes an encounter between an alien tentacled eyeball and a sheep—a beautiful sheep, as sheep go. The producers actually said on the companion podcast that they cast a particularly striking sheep, and her name is Victoria. If I hadn’t listened to the podcast, I wouldn’t know that.
Jacobsen: It turns out there are three Victorias. There’s the live sheep, there’s an animatronic version, and there’s a CGI version. Because certain things happen to Victoria that obviously couldn’t be done to a real animal. How does that scene progress with the alien eyeball and the sheep?
Rosner: The alien is designed around the concept of the eye as a universal organ—something found across many species. This creature exploits that. It leaps onto your face, rips out your eyeball, inserts itself into the socket, runs its tentacles into your brain, and takes over control of your nervous system.
Jacobsen: So what happens specifically with the sheep?
Rosner: They hook the sheep up to an electroencephalograph to monitor brain waves. After the alien implants itself, the characters notice spikes in gamma wave activity. They comment that this must be an intelligent creature because it’s producing brainwave patterns beyond what the sheep would usually generate.
Jacobsen: Was there much commentary about it on the podcast?
Rosner: Not much. But it’s effective storytelling. Episode four marks the halfway point of the season, and unlike many eight-hour shows that drag, this one is tightly packed. The show has enough going on to sustain the runtime.
You’ve got five or six hybrid characters—human children whose consciousnesses were transferred into adult synthetic bodies. You’ve got five distinct alien types. You’ve got an android played by Timothy Olyphant. You’vegot other enhanced characters that blur the line between human and machine. There are enough creatures and personalities in play to keep an eight-hour story compelling.
I watched a show called Culprits. Back on the alien series for a moment—quick question. Do we know anything about the other creatures? So far, we’ve seen the tentacle parasite, the “super tick,” and the regular Xenomorph we’ve known for 46 years. That’s three. Do we know the other two?
There’s something called “the Orchid,” but I haven’t gotten that far into the episode. If that’s another creature, that would bring us closer to five. By about halfway through this episode, we know of three, but not all of their capabilities, yet.
What else can we talk about?
Jacobsen: Several high-ranking people at the CDC just resigned. The acting head of the CDC—who had only been in place for a month—was fired and is being replaced by a vaccine skeptic.
Rosner: And some of her deputies walked out in protest. It’s a response to a cluster of bad policy decisions that will likely result in the needless deaths of thousands, maybe tens of thousands, of Americans. They’re dismantling the vaccine infrastructure, reinforcing anti-vax attitudes, and undermining public health.
They’ve also cut about half a billion dollars from mRNA research, mainly because of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. He’s a longtime anti-vaccine activist, who has an addiction in recovery, and someone with a history of disturbing behaviour. And yet, he’s suddenly in charge of health policy decisions.
He only got that position because of his famous name, which Trump sees as politically advantageous. It helps shore up Trump’s support among anti-vaccine groups. Trump has a mixed record himself: on one hand, he launched Operation Warp Speed, which sped vaccine development; on the other hand, he downplayed COVID and spread misinformation.
His reasoning in appointing RFK Jr. seems less about competence and more about reinforcing his base. Trump enjoys associating himself with famous people. Kennedy’s name gives him star power, and his anti-vax stance appeals to Trump’s more conspiratorial supporters.
The danger is that Kennedy wants to dismantle the CDC and Health and Human Services entirely, with no clear replacement. And Trump, who has always loved breaking institutions, is happy to enable that. Add to that Trump’s own decline—he seems to show circulation and balance issues, maybe early cognitive decline—and it becomes even more dangerous.
So in sum: revenge, stupidity, and ego. That’s the mix.
Jacobsen: Any thoughts on the Minneapolis church shooting?
Rosner: The right is trying to make it about the shooter being trans. But the core issue remains the same: guns. The shooter had Nazi slogans and other extremist phrases painted on his weapons. He also left a manifesto. He was clearly unstable and hateful, but the fixation on whether he was trans or not is a distraction.
The real story is the availability of firearms. When these shootings happen, everyone scrambles to assign political labels—liberal, conservative, trans, straight, whatever—when in reality, the problem is that Republicans have done nothing for decades to curb the flood of guns.
There are about 470 million firearms in the U.S. for roughly 250 million adults. That’s about 1.9 guns per adult. The scale of availability makes this inevitable.
In the U.S., only about one-third of households own guns, but those households average around eight firearms each. Some of these numbers overlap or look contradictory depending on surveys, but the trend is clear: concentrated gun ownership.
And the people who own those guns overwhelmingly support Republicans. Most of them are fine with no progress being made. But there’s easy technology available to make firearms safer—biometric locks, for example. You can secure a gun by locking it or keeping it in a lockbox that is keyed to the registered owner, using fingerprint recognition. That’s established technology.
Not only is it not required, but if a major gun manufacturer advertises biometric safety features, the NRA attacks them for supporting “gun control.” Yet most Americans say they would support common-sense safety measures. The NRA, even after being prosecuted for fraud at the executive level, still has enough political power to shut down anything that makes guns safer or less accessible. Republican voters seem OK with that.
And the sheer number of guns in the U.S. means that the only real solution now looks science-fictional. We have about 36,000 gun deaths each year—roughly 100 per day—and about half of those are suicides. The U.S. murder rate is about 8–10 times higher than that of other developed nations like Spain or Canada. That’s unlikely to change anytime soon.
Which is why I think the “solution” is something like downloadable brains. A hundred years from now, people with enough wealth might be able to upload their brains into another vessel. Early versions won’t have perfect fidelity, but it would mean safety from disease and from being shot. Until then, I don’t see much making America safer from gun violence.
Back when Biden was in the Senate, he helped pass the 1994 assault weapons ban, which lasted 10 years. During that period, the number of mass shooting deaths dropped. But under current political circumstances, I don’t see anything like that passing 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): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/08/31
Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner examine sex’s shrinking cultural centrality as Gen Z drinks less, dates less, and grows more intimate with technology. Rosner criticizes Altered Carbon’s hypersexualized futurism and expects tech to keep reducing sex’s social prominence, despite its unmatched, safe pleasure. They contrast generational behaviors, noting Boomers’ elevated STIs. Rosner recounts shifts since the Pill, the backlash after AIDS, and reassessments of coercion. They discuss Alien: Earth’s synth child Wendy, corporate hubris, and evolving identity, and xenomorph biology and design, linking H. R. Giger’s sexual aesthetics to 1970s unease. Comparisons span Severance, Fargo, and Peacemaker’s John Cena.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Let us talk about the future role of sex. It is becoming less important. Gen Z is not as sexually preoccupied as earlier generations. Much of the desire seems to be squeezed out by constant digital immersion—at least that is one driver among several. Many young people lack social skills or are unwilling to make the effort. Add in pessimism about relationships, economic hardship, and reluctance to start families—it all reduces the likelihood of coupling.
Rick Rosner: There was a show I have complained about a lot, Altered Carbon(2018). It is about digital consciousness stored in “stacks” that can be moved from one body to another. It is set 300 years in the future, but everyone is still in human bodies—and attractive ones at that. Joel Kinnaman, a fairly standard actor, starred in the first season.
They put Kinnaman through a Marvel-style superhero training regimen—packed on muscle, got extremely lean, and showed him naked constantly. Altered Carbon turned into a hyper-sexualized show, which annoyed me. It was one of those science fiction series that does not try very hard to imagine the future. It makes one change—consciousness transfer—but leaves everything else the same. Three hundred years from now, people are still obsessed with being hot and having sex. That is not realistic. The future will not look like that.
Jacobsen: So what was your point?
Rosner: My point is that attitudes about sex are already changing and will change more. Sex will always have a place among humans because it is one of the safest ways to get an intense rush of pleasure—dopamine, serotonin, endorphins, the whole cocktail. It is probably the closest natural equivalent to the rush you would get from a hard drug like heroin, but without the same addiction profile or health risks, though it is not risk-free. It is the strongest, relatively safe pleasure hit humans have, short of drugs. However, its social prominence will continue to decline as we become increasingly intimate with our technology.
Jacobsen: Gen Z is not drinking as much either, which is a smart move. They are more responsible than older generations. Boomers, on the other hand, have seen divorce rates rise, and STIs are climbing among older adults; condom use in those age groups is often low.
Rosner: Really? Boomers?
Jacobsen: Yes.
Rosner: Especially in retirement and senior living communities, STI rates have been high. Creepy old bodies, bad decisions.
Anyway, it is not necessarily a bad thing that Gen Z is moving away from constant sensation-seeking. They are not as obsessed with sex, and that might be healthy.
When I was growing up, the birth control pill became semi-widely available in the early 1960s. Initially, only married women were eligible to receive prescriptions. A few years later, access expanded, and college women could get on the pill.
Before the 1960s, sex was tightly regulated and stigmatized. It was “for married people” or for the most popular high schoolers—cheerleaders and football players. The rest had a hard time, and many men went to prostitutes, though nobody talked about it. Sex was much less accessible.
Then the pill arrived and broke everything open. For someone like me, born in 1960, I grew up seeing that change. By the 1970s, the disco era brought widespread casual sex—and herpes, though people did not figure that out right away. I saw a trend of increasing sexual freedom.
Magazines reinforced it: Playboy, Penthouse, and Hustler competed to push boundaries. Penthouse surpassed Playboy by being the first to show pubic hair. Hustler went further, showing explicit detail. Pornographic movies moved into mainstream theatres, where average people could watch them.
So in the 1970s, it seemed apparent that society would keep getting sexier until everyone was having sex all the time. However, then the 1980s hit, and we realized the fallout: herpes was everywhere, and AIDS emerged.
And then Nancy Reagan started saying, “Just Say No.” Cocaine use got out of hand in the 1980s—it went from being a club drug to a Wall Street drug, fueling aggression and arrogance. That whole shift led to a backlash against the hyper-sexualized culture of the 1970s.
Plus, by the 1990s and 2000s, people realized a lot of what had been portrayed as “harmlessly sexy” was actually coercive and predatory.
So sex has taken major cultural hits in the 21st century and will continue to lose ground to technology.
Jacobsen: Anyway, the ongoing Alien: Earth saga, what did you see in those five minutes of Alien: Earth, episode four?
Rosner: The main character, Wendy, is a synth. She was a dying child whose consciousness was transferred into a synthetic human body. Now she is super strong, does not need sleep, is intellectually enhanced, and can hear the aliens when they chatter.
Jacobsen: The big ones?
Rosner: The big, nasty ones—but I do not think there are any fully grown xenomorphs yet. There are maybe five or six eggs salvaged from the ship. She must be hearing immature forms. We have not seen this before—at least not in earlier films. Perhaps we have not observed every developmental stage because the facehugger implant is only a few inches long—similar to a tadpole or embryo.
However, she can hear them, and they make a high-frequency chittering sound. Meanwhile, the wealthy industrialist—Boy Kavalier, head of the Prodigy Corporation—controls the salvage operation. He is a genius but also an arrogant asshole, the kind of corporate villain we always see in Alien stories, and not unlike today’s tech billionaires.
He is thrilled to have these creatures, though one of his underlings reminds him of his prior goals. Kavalier replies that he does not want to wake up someday with an alien embryo in his chest. If he does not research them, he assumes some rival corporation will, and they could use that knowledge against him. So in his mind, he is studying them for self-preservation. It is a clever justification. That is where the plot stands now.
Jacobsen: Anything else? Oh, I just finished a novel by Gary Shteyngart. He was born in Russia and came to the U.S. as a teenager. His latest novel, Vera, or Faith, is an interesting companion piece to Alien: Earth.
Jacobsen: How so?
Rosner: Because in Alien: Earth—set in 2120—many of the main characters are children whose brains have been transferred into synthetic super-bodies. Vera, set in the early 2030s, also centers on a child protagonist, though it is less science-fictional and more literary. Both explore the future of childhood and the concept of identity.
Jacobsen: That is a neat parallel.
Rosner: And right now, as we are talking, you probably cannot hear it, but coyotes around here are howling. They had pups in March or April, so by now the young ones are five or six months old. The nights are full of their calls. There are three or four of them going off right now—maybe a couple of grown coyotes along with the pups. It is creepy. It is not really howling, it is yipping, and it is frenzied. Makes you fear for your pets.
The adults usually stay away—they have learned. However, the pups, who knows what they would try. Moreover, it is too early for them to be this noisy. Usually, they go off at three, four, or five in the morning, which is a creepy way to be woken up. You have been to our house—we have got a decent-sized yard. I assume it is coyote-proof, with the cinder block wall.
It is approximately five and a half to six feet tall. In a pinch, they could get over it, but so far, they have not tried.
Jacobsen: Okay, question: What do you think is a design flaw in the Xenomorph?
Rosner: In terms of being a scary predator, it is thoroughly designed. It is hard to kill, super fast, smart, and its exoskeleton is durable—almost metallic. Some bullets bounce off it. Additionally, it has acid in its blood and a tail that can cut someone in half. It is designed to be extra creepy, which makes sense for movies, but in real life, some things do not add up.
For example, it grows from a tiny chestburster to an eight-foot-tall monster in about 24–48 hours. Where does all that mass come from? What does it eat? The films do not explain. Moreover, if its blood is acidic and its body metallic, what fuel source sustains it? The movies never dwell on this, which is fine for drama, but biologically, it does not make sense.
Also, the films imply it evolved naturally, but I have always suspected it was engineered. Imagine some advanced species designing them as bioweapons to wipe out entire planets. Release a few xenomorphs, and they reproduce fast enough to annihilate weaker species. I do not think the films really went there, though; maybe I missed it—there are entries I did not pay close attention to.
Jacobsen: Do you have thoughts on specific design flaws? What is with the elongated head?
Rosner: You could argue the head works as a battering ram—durable enough to smash through barriers—, but I do not think we have seen that onscreen. The long, domed head actually comes from H. R. Giger. It is a design choice more than a functional trait. It looks unsettling and also somewhat sexual. You can read Giger’s work as weaving in sexual elements—elongated, curved shapes, suggestive of genitalia.
Giger was working in the 1970s, which was a highly sexualized time. At the same time, that cultural proliferation of sex was also becoming creepy—something people later reevaluated, once it became clear how much harm had been hidden beneath the “free love” surface.
By the late ’70s, people had infected each other with herpes, and in the ’80s, AIDS began spreading. So H. R. Giger’s vaguely sinister, vaguely sexual designs were a reflection of the creepiness and dangers of sex—its invasiveness and its risks.
It was the undercurrent of the disco era. Sex was not just fun; it carried an edge of menace.
Jacobsen: What do you think is a comparable series in sci-fi to this show so far?
Rosner: One obvious comparison is Fargo. The same creator has done five seasons of it, and each one is high quality. He assembles a strong cast, tells a different story every season, and it is consistently thoughtful. That is a solid benchmark.
Not as good as Succession, however. That show was deliberately trying to be prestige TV: excellent writing, strong characters, brutal social commentary.
I am considering other comparisons. I loved BoJack Horseman, but that is already eight years old and a very different kind of show.
Jacobsen: What about Severance?
Rosner: Yes—Severance is super high quality. Obsessive perfectionists made it. Every detail was thought through. They went way over budget because they reshot scenes multiple times to get the best possible version. Sometimes they would even throw out finished scenes when they came up with better ideas and rewrite and reshoot entirely new material. That level of care shows. That is the sort of thoroughness you want in a great show.
Your Friends & Neighbours with Jon Hamm was entertaining, but not as comprehensive or polished. Peacemaker, on the other hand—James Gunn’s show with John Cena—is fun but messy. James Gunn directed the new Superman, right? Moreover, he is co-head of DC Studios.
He is a funny writer-director, but his work is scattered compared to the meticulous productions like Severance. Peacemaker is not as high-quality as Alien: Earth, but it delivers entertainment because of its outrageous nature. There is a scene with John Cena—America’s sweetheart, basically. Did we talk about Peacemaker before?
Jacobsen: I do not think so.
Rosner: Cena was a hugely popular professional wrestler, almost always playing the “face”—the good guy—throughout his career. He was an all-American symbol of goodness. In Peacemaker, though, he plays a deeply flawed, morally compromised superhero. He kills way more people than you would want a hero to kill, and he has personal issues that make him unpleasant to be around.
The show is filthy, violent, and absurd—but fun, precisely because Cena is cast against type. In the latest episode, his character even interviews for what amounts to the “A-team” of the current DCU: the Justice Gang.
He does not cut, so he ends up back at his rundown house, sad, doing lines of coke. The scene cuts from him doing lines to suddenly being in the middle of an orgy.
Rosner: With John Cena?
Jacobsen: Yes—America’s wholesome hero, suddenly in this deranged scene. They cast 20 or 25 extras, all furiously having sex around him while he wanders his house in a depressed haze. It is so wild and so subversive.
Rosner: Is he in his underwear?
Jacobsen: Of course. They put him in tighty-whities constantly. However, because he is enormous, the underwear looks ridiculous on him. The whole thing is deliberately absurd: John Cena, this all-American good guy, wandering sadly through a chaotic orgy, drugged up.
It is not the same level of craftsmanship as Succession or Severance. Still, it is just as entertaining because it gleefully subverts expectations. Peacemaker is basically a Deadpool-style satire. It takes all the familiar superhero tropes and screws 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
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/08/31
Rick Rosner riffs on screen “great-man” jawlines, wondering if the actress is Sydney Chandler, and cites tall, strong-faced performers like Katey Sagal, Sigourney Weaver, and Geena Davis. He recalls chewing gum as a mouthguard while working bars, sporadic real fights versus triumphant fight dreams, and a 1998–99 sucker punch that cost him $959 and his job. Pivoting to Alien: Earth, he notes the heroine’s synthetic brain with wireless telemetry and a multi-species arc. He contextualizes xenomorph sexuality—facehuggers, cocooning, Alien: Resurrection’s hybrid—via H. R. Giger’s biomechanical aesthetic. He contrasts the sensual 1970s with today’s AI mash-ups, where filters mute tropes and echoes.
Rick Rosner: I went out to dinner with Carole, then we watched some TV, and I went back to the gym—so I haven’t checked yet. I thought the lead actress was Kyle Chandler’s daughter.
She might be—Kyle Chandler’s daughter, Sydney Chandler, is an actor—but without the show title, I can’t confirm that’s who you mean. In any case, some actors with strong, square jawlines photograph exceptionally well on screen.
Katey Sagal—she has a strong face. Sigourney Weaver also has a notably square face and is about 5’11”, which plays well for action roles.
She and Geena Davis are around six feet tall. Geena Davis trained seriously in archery and competed at the U.S. Olympic Trials around 1999–2000, though she didn’t make the team. Being tall and strong can be an advantage in that sport.
Good bow, strong back. So what happened to that “great-man” look? It’s the Batman-face thing—strong-jaw actors. I’m particular about the shows I watch, but I get what you mean about that actress. I even chewed a ton of gum to build up my jaw muscles.
Additionally, it serves as a type of mouthguard. When I worked in a bar, I figured if someone punched me, the gum might help. No one ever got me in the mouth—they always aimed for the eye. Luckily, I’ve got much bone around the eye socket, and drunk swings rarely landed cleanly.
Advertisement
Still, a big wad of gum might work as a mouth guard.
So—when was the last time you got punched?
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Never.
Rosner: Peaceful, fricking Canadians.
Jacobsen: I can’t. I’ve never been in a fight. That’s wild. I’ve never been in a fist fight. The only time I punched someone was on a dare, and they were horrified. They were short, so I punched downward and hit the top left side of their head.
Rosner: That would be shocking, coming out of nowhere. That’s violent.
Jacobsen: They asked me to do it, they wanted me to. Then I felt so bad. I turned on my heel—it was in high school. I’ve never been in a real fight.
Rosner: In actual fights, I usually get my ass kicked, but not seriously—never anything hospital-worthy. They were always dumb bar fights. Someone would take me down, maybe bite me, but usually it was just a takedown. I didn’t even get hit that much.
But in my dreams, when I fight—like when I’d wrestle Sal at Kimmel—he’d have me tied up on the ground in seconds because he was a competent wrestler and I wasn’t. Still, in my dreams, I’m the one beating people up. I feel a little bad about it, because they won’t stay down. In movies, when someone gets their ass kicked, the victor says, “Stay down.” That’s what I say in my dreams.
They don’t stay down—they keep getting up. I keep pummeling them worse and worse. So I guess my dream self vastly overestimates my fighting skills.
Jacobsen: How are the fights around your eyes in the dream? Do they go for your eyes?
Rosner: Not really. They don’t do much damage. I end up cumulatively beating them down because they won’t quit. My punches don’t devastate them in one shot, but eventually they add up and leave them pretty beaten up.
Now… I did sucker punch a guy at work back in 1998 or 1999. Since it was a sucker punch, I had the advantage—they didn’t know it was coming. I landed three punches around his eye socket, which gave him a full black eye.
Jacobsen: Ouch.
Rosner: Yes. I technically won that fight, but the guy made me pay him $959 in damages, and I was subsequently fired from my job. So I won, but I lost.
Jacobsen: Now, speaking of eyes, did you notice anything in the first eight minutes of episode four of Alien: Earth?
Rosner: I shouldn’t spoil too much—but I will. The main character turns out to have hardware in her head, abilities neither she nor anyone else fully understands. She has a synthetic brain, and they must have built-in telemetry so she can Wi-Fi into systems.
Jacobsen: So she can communicate just by thinking?
Rosner: Not with every system, but when she wants to, she can figure out a way in. She has an extended sensory and transmitting array, and she picks up signals—including from the xenomorphs, the classic aliens. That was revealed at the end of episode three and carried over into this episode. Obviously, it’ll pay off later in the series, which is eight episodes long.
The writers and producers said they’ve planned a story arc that could continue for many seasons if the show gets picked up. I hope it does—I think it will. There are five different alien types in this show, including the one we know from the films. She’ll end up facing at least one of them. Sigourney Weaver’s Ripley faced several across the franchise—Weaver starred in the first four Alienfilms.
And in each of those Alien films, Sigourney Weaver becomes more intimate with the xenomorphs, even as she fights them to the death. In one of the movies, one of them impregnates her.
The facehugger implants an embryo—essentially a larval alien—into the host’s chest cavity, and it grows until it bursts out. But that’s not the same as a pregnancy. In Alien: Resurrection (1997), Weaver’s Ripley is cloned with alien DNA and ends up carrying a human–alien hybrid, which was more science fiction than biology.
That was one of the arcs: the more she fights them, the more she understands them, almost like frenemies. In that film, she wasn’t conscious when the impregnation happened. Sometimes the aliens cocoon people, gluing them to walls with resin for later use. She was likely subdued and implanted that way.
The artist who inspired the look of the Xenomorph was H. R. Giger, a Swiss painter and designer. In the 1970s, he created surreal, biomechanical art featuring dark, disturbing, and often sexually charged imagery. The producers of Alien brought him in to design the creatures. From the beginning, the alien was meant to be both terrifying and disturbingly sensual.
The facehugger forces intimacy—it literally invades your face. That sexual undertone was deliberate. It was also the 1970s, a time when sexuality was in everything culturally. Now it’s different—this isn’t a particularly “horny” era.
Instead, AI is generating all sorts of conflated imagery. AI doesn’t have imagination, but it mixes and matches artistic tropes.
Like the meme—“Honey badger don’t care.” AI doesn’t care either. It’ll mash genres together in unexpected ways. Even though our era isn’t especially sexual, AI-generated images often hint at sexualization.
If you look at MidJourney and other AI image tools, they’re careful not to produce overtly pornographic material, but traces of sexual undertones appear. And they could generate more if filters were removed.
The alien design itself is filled with sexual symbolism: slime, penetration, and that inner jaw extending outward. If you feel like it’s creepy and sexual, you’re right—it was built that way.
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): 2025/08/31
Rick Rosner reacts to Jacobsen’s prompt on entropy, admitting limited study and framing entropy as dwindling exploitable differences and mixed information, with quantum nonlocality complicating “information for whom.” He doubts universal entropy trends beyond local systems. The pair pivot to U.S. politics: a Texas redistricting push favoring Republicans; alleged intelligence-community purges under Trump allies; and the FBI’s search of John Bolton’s papers. Rosner decries misinformation dynamics on his show, says JD and Lance tag-teamed him, and contemplates ending or rebooting with far less politics. He closes with concern about eroding accountability, citing ignored court orders and what he sees as autocracy.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: We can distinguish three types of entropy: mechanical, informational, and statistical/thermal, or some combination of those.
Rick Rosner: I have not really looked into the different entropies. I know that, in general, entropy refers to a system with little exploitable information or energy differences—it is all relatively uniform. You cannot get any work done by having something flow from hot to cold, because everything is the same temperature.
And there is little information in that system. If you have the green marbles on one side and the blue marbles on the other, that has information: green on the left, red on the right. But if they are all mixed together, there is less exploitable information. If you are sorting marbles into bins, there is one way to ensure that all the green marbles are on the left and all the blue marbles are on the right. However, there are numerous ways to achieve roughly the same 49% green on one side, and so on. Entropy is related to information, and information itself is not yet fully understood.
All right, take quantum mechanics. A particle in quantum mechanics—and I cannot tell you exactly how, because of the matrix operations—but a particle is not perfectly localized. In practical terms, yes, but in principle, there is a non-zero probability of finding that particle anywhere in the universe. So the particle is incompletely localized.
If you want to talk about information, you need to ask: information for whom? What is your framework? By specifying a framework, you are acknowledging that information is not localized. From that, I reason that we probably do not know shit about entropy within the context of the entire universe. We reason from local conditions that entropy increases unless energy is added or sorting occurs.
Any system that is not receiving external input will increase in entropy. But the entire universe—I do not believe that necessarily entropy increases. Though in a Big Bang universe, entropy rises until you get what they call a “lukewarm universe,” in which, a trillion years from now, if the universe keeps expanding, everything will be the same temperature. At that point, there will be no usable energy anywhere.
That is what I know about entropy: that it is probably not completely understood. Comments?
Jacobsen: No. We should do the news. The Texas Senate has approved a redistricting bill, which will now be sent to the governor for signature. What are your thoughts on that?
Jacobsen: It has been coming. We have already talked about it. It has been coming for weeks, maybe a couple of months.
Trump asked Texas to redistrict their congressional maps. Texas sends 38 representatives to the House of Representatives, and somebody told Trump you could gerrymander the state—concentrate Democrats into a few districts. Texas is currently running about 43% Democratic, 50-some percent Republican.
But if you draw your maps craftily, you can give Republicans narrow majorities in 30 of the 38 districts by concentrating Democrats. So Republicans win 52–47 in dozens of districts, while Democrats win 80–17 in a handful of concentrated districts. Currently, there are 12 Democratic members of Congress from Texas—that is only about 32% of the delegation, when it should be closer to 16 or 17 Democrats, if it matched the voter share.
They are going to draw a map that, if it works as intended, will give them 30 Republican Congresspeople and only 8 Democrats. That is important because the House usually flips under an unpopular president, and Trump is trying to rig it so Republicans do not lose control after the 2026 election. If they retain power, it would be terrible for the country, because Trump is doing more bad shit than any president since the Civil War—maybe ever.
He is not constrained. And the Supreme Court has given him wide latitude. So one of the only ways to stop him from doing more bad shit for the next three years is for Democrats to win the House in 2026.
Beyond that, I do not have any special insight except to point out some of the crazy shit being done. Tulsi Gabbard, the Director of National Intelligence, is firing half of the Department of National Intelligence and eliminating the entire Russia desk. So we will not know what Russia is up to. Gabbard has been accused of being a Russian asset for more than a decade, and we are powerless to stop this hollowing out of the government.
And people who should be concerned are just playing along. Republicans used to be anti-Soviet and anti-Russian meddling in American politics for a century. But now they are rolling over. They are not the Republicans of previous decades. They are pieces of shit giving control of the country to people who are Russian dupes.
Do you know what a Russian dupe is?
Jacobsen: Which is a useful idiom.
Rosner: Yeah, it is the same thing—somebody whom Russia unduly influences. Now, when I call Trump a Russian dupe, Lance likes to say that I am calling Trump a Russian spy and then argues that it is stupid and has been debunked.
Of course, I have never said that Trump is a Russian spy. Lance characterizes what I say that way because he can debunk it. That is one more reason why I am shutting down the show tomorrow—after tomorrow. I cannot win.
We may come back in a few months with a different format. Whatever form it comes back in, it is going to be much less politics. Because I cannot win with people who will not be truthful about things or acknowledge well-established facts, and if JD is going to make it “more exciting” by double-teaming me with Lance, then I cannot do it. It is not suitable for me.
It is not suitable for a show that aims to make a point or help people. It is just bullshit. I am done with it.
Jacobsen: Big news in the States. The FBI raided John Bolton’s house looking for classified documents he was not supposed to have. Was there a justification given for it?
Rosner: He was National Security Advisor under Trump, and he has been deeply involved in Republican foreign policy for decades. But he has been talking forthrightly about how terrible Trump is. So this is seen as Trump’s revenge.
The FBI has not announced what they found in the way of classified documents, but I am sure he has a ton of papers. They may decide that some of those papers are classified. Probably nothing of enormous import—his time as National Security Advisor ended about six years ago. And he is probably not dumb enough to keep super-important papers he should not have.
But any of his notes on situations with classified aspects could be ruled classified. If the FBI finds them, they can submit those notes to the person in charge of classification. They can look at handwritten notes he took in meetings and say, “This information should be classified.” So I assume they will find a few dozen documents considered classified. Maybe more, maybe fewer. Probably in the same neighbourhood as Biden, because Biden had a bunch of boxes of old material.
Everybody has boxes of old material from previous jobs. I have big stacks of scripts and notes—probably four or five cubic feet of them. If I had worked for the government, I might have had a couple of cubic feet of notes. And if I had worked in a sensitive agency like the State Department, those could easily include classified information.
Biden had maybe a dozen, twenty or thirty boxes of old documents. They went through them and found a couple of dozen classified documents, dating back to before he was president.
Trump, meanwhile, had more than 100 boxes of documents that the National Archives had been requesting for almost a year. He kept putting them off, saying he had returned them all or would soon do so. After ten months, they finally sent the FBI in to get them. Trump had approximately ten times as many classified or top-secret documents as Biden.
However, Fox News attempted to spin it as an equivalent situation. And they will do the same with whatever Bolton has.
Jacobsen: Pete Hegseth has fired the Defence Intelligence Agency chief and other officials, including the head of the Pentagon’s intelligence agency and two other senior military commanders. Lieutenant General Jeffrey Cruz was fired.
Rosner: All the departments are eliminating people who disagree with them. Pam Bondi, the Attorney General, fired her ethics advisor.
You are supposed to have an ethics expert to help you navigate thorny issues that come up. And now the departments are basically saying “fuck accountability.” They are going to do whatever they want.
People are calling this an autocracy at the least. Entire swaths of government are now run by people who do whatever the fuck they want without regard for legality.
A judge ruled that Alligator Alcatraz has to be shut down within 60 days, as it is an environmental hazard on Native American land. And DeSantis refuses to shut it down. What is going to stop him? Who is going to stop him? Trump will not. The federal government probably will not.
So he is just going to contravene a legal order. Things are fucked here.
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): 2025/08/31
Scott Douglas Jacobsen presses for testability in informational cosmology. Rick Rosner argues near-term tests must target present-day signs of matter older than the universe’s apparent 13.8 billion-year age, despite observability limits: dim, delocalized halo objects and small lensing. He expects space based mega telescopes and AI analytics to reveal super old objects and excess heavy element abundances versus Big Bang predictions, plus more convoluted structure near T~0 from repeated burn collapse cycles. For clarity and precision, he proposes a Gamow-style narrative. Elements beyond uranium are unstable; metallicity rises with time; long lived isotopic ratios date stars and cosmic dating.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: All right, so we talked about falsifiability in informational cosmology. Some other terms include clarity and precision. But I know the core one is testability. When you think of testability, what are you pointing to?
There are many things it could mean. The significant aspect of IC in terms of how it would be reflected in the universe—over a timescale we could actually deal with—is basically zero, because you have a theory that says the universe is much older than it appears to be.
But the universe already appears to be nearly 14 billion years old. To test it via expansion over time would take a billion times longer than we have. So, you need to test aspects of the universe in the present moment that indicate matter older than the apparent age of the universe.
Rick Rosner: Almost all of what might qualify is difficult to see, as it emits little light, and it is not highly localized. The closest star to the Sun is Alpha Centauri, four light-years away. And we are about two-thirds of the way from the center of the galaxy to the edge of the visible galaxy—closer to the edge than to the center. Then you have the halo of dark matter. So you are trying to detect things in the halo.
I forgot the exact diameter of the Milky Way. Still, you are probably looking at stuff 50,000 light-years away that emits almost no radiation. That is tough to see. Even gravitational lensing created by collapsed matter is tricky to observe, because the little lenses are not big—they are just stellar masses. So the distortion of the visual field does not have a considerable angular distance.
Especially since we are looking outward from inside the galaxy, you will not necessarily see collapsed matter pass between you and a shining star. It’s tough to observe that. That is one problem with testability—the stuff you are looking for is almost invisible.
However, you have a ton of new technology coming online all the time. It used to be challenging to make large telescopes—you had to grind glass and mirrors to exact tolerances. Now you set up arrays of photon detectors, and those can be as big as you want, coordinated by computers. So telescope technology keeps getting better.
The easiest place to set them up is on Earth—but that does not always work, because most of Earth’s locations are not suitable. You want to be 10,000 feet above sea level with no light pollution. Even then, you still do better by setting them up in space. That is harder—you have to launch and unfold them—but in 30 or 40 years, the ability to set up giant telescopes outside Earth’s atmosphere will be much greater.
And then we will be able to see a lot more. Regardless of whether the Big Bang is genuine, the Theory itself is subject to radical revision. The Big Bang has already accumulated anomalies—observations that do not jibe with the traditional Theory. So it keeps getting patched. But odds are you cannot keep patching it forever.
Eventually, a new theory will need to be developed with fewer moving parts that explains more of the anomalies. The Big Bang theory, with 50 patches, has more moving parts than a new theory with a few simple explanations. That is what is going to happen: big telescopes in space, massive analytics courtesy of big compute and AI.
That will give us a sharper and sharper picture of what the universe looked like at various distances from us, which means billions of years in the past.
So we will get a better and better picture of the overall universal structure. And we will find out more about the objects within the universe. I would bet a substantial amount of money that there will be a whole class of objects—call them super-old objects—things that appear to be older than 13.8 billion years. That is testability right there.
Another example of “old” phenomena would be elements heavier than iron. We have discussed talks: those can only be created in rare events, such as novae or neutron star collisions. They do not happen often. However, with better technology, we can assay the universe more precisely and take a census of how many of these rare, superheavy elements are out there.
Suppose the amount is significantly higher than what a 14-billion-year-old universe would predict. In that case, that might qualify as evidence of super-old processes. Say, for example, we find three times as much gold as expected, based on spectrographic data of stars or other cosmic objects. Spectrographs look for elemental signatures so that you can pick up spikes for gold or other heavy elements.
I assume stars formed from stellar dust would contain tiny traces—maybe one nucleus in a trillion could be a gold nucleus. The question is whether spectrographs are sensitive enough to detect such faint spikes. Radiation signatures might also be helpful, but I would need to look up the specifics on where astronomers actually find gold in the universe versus simply under Earth’s surface.
However, they have already discussed the fact that there seems to be more gold than expected. Therefore, techniques for detecting these things will improve significantly over the next 30–40 years. And I think we will find heavier elements than expected in a universe that is supposedly only 14 billion years old.
That is where I would go with testability.
Also, I would expect that the universe near T=0—as far back as you can see—would be more convoluted, more crumpled. Suppose galaxies or galaxy clusters burn out and are pushed to the outskirts, a process that has occurred thousands of times. In that case, the geometry of all these collapsed regions within an already collapsed region should be more complicated than the smooth picture painted by standard Big Bang cosmology. Improved technology might eventually let us observe evidence of that repeated expansion-and-collapse structure.
There you go.
Jacobsen: So what makes an IC proposal clearer? What makes it more precise? One more thing. IC draws analogies between the information structure of an individual consciousness and the universe itself.
Rosner: Another possible test is through mapping connectomes. Maybe not for a human brain—that is too complex—but maybe for a grasshopper, or a simple reptile.
If you map a connectome and then try to optimize it—not just a raw map of connections, but one that reduces lengths and redundancies into an information space—you might end up with structures that resemble the universe. If an information-processing system, when mapped optimally, resembles large-scale cosmic structure, that could be evidence that both mind and universe are information spaces.
For example, mapping relational structures might initially yield a 150-dimensional space. That is computationally wasteful, since most of that space is empty. There are techniques for collapsing dimensions that are not used much. If, by reducing the number of dimensions from 150 down to 12, the structure starts to resemble the universe, that could be a clue.
Jacobsen: What makes this argument—IC as a whole—more precise, and what makes it clearer?
Rosner: Think of it like the “neutron cycle.” That is probably not the best name, but if you can clearly and physically show how big parts of the universe can light up, burn for billions of years, exhaust their fusion fuel, collapse, and then light up again, that would be a clear argument for IC’s possibility.
It is like running into a drunk George Gamow at a party in 1956. He could have given you a convincing rundown of how Big Bang cosmology might work—nucleosynthesis, hydrogen and helium ratios, expansion and cooling, star and galaxy formation—even without much math. IC needs a similar intuitive, evidence-based story.
You could describe how specific regions of the universe burn out, collapse, fade, and then light up again via networks and filaments. That cyclical model could be explained convincingly in the same way. Rotten Tomatoes.
Additionally, some parts of the universe may remain lit for extremely long periods. How do you keep a galaxy, or a galactic cluster, or some filament stretching across eight billion light-years—how do you keep that going?
Jacobsen: There’s a common idea in physics and cosmology about how elements form and are distributed in the universe. We often hear that naturally occurring elements evolve into uranium, which has an atomic number of 92. If the universe were much older, you might expect more time for extreme, localized events that forge heavy elements.
Rosner: Right—but everything heavier than uranium (atomic number >92) is unstable and radioactive. Some isotopes last a long time, but none are truly stable.
Jacobsen: Follow-up: if those heavy elements decay in specific ways, could that change the distribution you’d expect in one cosmological model versus another?
Rosner: Probably not in the way you’re thinking. Big Bang nucleosynthesis primarily produced hydrogen, helium, and a small amount of lithium; everything heavier was formed later in stars and through events such as neutron-star mergers and supernovae. With more time, you’d see higher overall “metallicity” (more heavy elements), but not stable elements beyond uranium.
Jacobsen: So, is there something like elemental homeostasis?
Rosner: Not precisely. Gold-197 is stable, so it sticks around. Plutonium mostly doesn’t: common isotopes like Pu-239 have half-lives of about 24,000 years, and the long-lived Pu-244 is ~80 million years—long on human scales, short geologically compared to Earth’s age. Uranium has very long-lived isotopes—U-238 is ~4.5 billion years; U-235 is ~704 million years. Also, uranium isn’t rarer than gold—on Earth, uranium is thousands of times more abundant in the crust than gold. The heaviest long-lived naturally occurring elements are thorium (Th-232, ~14 billion years) and uranium (U-238). Heavier transuranics can be produced; they decay much faster than the Earth’s age, though not necessarily in mere decades.About sixty years ago, people predicted an “island of stability” for superheavy nuclei around proton numbers of 114–126 and neutron numbers of 184 (mass numbers near 280). Experiments have found a modest stability bump: some isotopes live seconds to minutes—much longer than microseconds—but still short-lived. So elements beyond 92 don’t really help you find matter “older than the universe.” What helps with cosmic dating are long-lived isotopic ratios, such as uranium-to-thorium ratios in ancient stars; unsurprisingly, nothing predates the universe itself.
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): 2025/08/31
Rick Rosner recounts a demoralizing episode of his long-running debate show, feeling double-teamed by Lance and JD and hurt by their combative, bad-faith tactics. He argues Lance parrots conservative podcasts and refuses to concede Republican wrongdoing, citing transgender veterans’ benefits as an example, while JD amplifies conflict. After nine years with minimal audience impact, Rosner questions continuing, fearing the show normalizes misinformation and drains time, money, and energy. He critiques the sloppy plotting of the TV series Red Eye, then pivots to hostile market for documentaries, proposing a meta-documentary about pitching projects that reconstructs meetings from notes when recordings unusable.
Rick Rosner: So, next time I meet with JD and Lance, I have to ask them why I should not shut down the show. You listened to and watched the whole thing last night—and Lance mostly talks bullshit. He spends hours every week listening to conservative podcasts that teach him how to justify or dodge anything shitty that Trump and the Republicans have done. I try to be reasonable, and if Lance ever made a decent point, I would acknowledge it. However, he never does. Last night, JD jumped in multiple times to support Lance and yell at me. He was not justified any of those times. What do you think? Honestly, I feel like I am facilitating nonsense.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Did you feel attacked?
Rosner: The show is about confrontation, but last night in particular, the bullshit poured down. Yesterday, I got double-teamed.
Jacobsen: Double-teamed—okay, they tag-teamed against you.
Rosner: I do not know if other things were going on, but that was rough. Sometimes, JD thinks Lance has a legitimate point, but other times, he enjoys getting me pissed off and yelling. Sure, the show is about people yelling at each other, but it should not be about letting lies win.
So, how do I feel now? I got bummed out enough about the show that we quit doing it for almost a year. However, I am the one who decides whether we continue. If it is going to be like last night, then there is no point. It costs me time, money, and frustration—and not that many people even watch it. I am not sure it changes anyone’s mind. It might even push people toward the bullshit side.
Jacobsen: What was the original purpose of it, the show?
Rosner: I thought it would be funny and entertaining to have a political argument while one of us was naked. We decided against me being fully nude, but I thought it would be easy and cheap to produce, which it is. If people did not like the politics, perhaps they would at least appreciate the art. However, after nine years, we are still unknown and unpopular. It probably just raises my stress and cortisol levels unnecessarily. Lance will not acknowledge Republican wrongdoing. The closest he came was when I mentioned that the Department of Defence is denying medical benefits and pensions to transgender military personnel—benefits they earned—just to be cruel. Lance kept throwing out objections, maybe that it was about recovering healthcare costs, which is absurd.
Jacobsen: So, how did it feel being double-teamed?
Rosner: I am used to it—it happens not infrequently—but last night was the most extreme. Reflecting on it afterwards, I became quite annoyed.
Jacobsen: Were your feelings hurt?
Rosner: Yes.
Jacobsen: Do you ever talk to them about how your feelings are hurt?
Rosner: I am going to, but I want it on camera. You do not waste a moment like that off-camera. So next week, I will say I thought it was bullshit, and I do not see any point in continuing the show.
Jacobsen: Are you sure about that? Or on the fence?
Rosner: I am not sure yet.
Jacobsen: Or are you leaning one way or the other now?
Rosner: I do not know. The more I think about it—well, I still have a week until we do it again. However, what is the point? We have not gained thousands of viewers. It does not puncture conservative arguments either. If you already believe what Lance believes, nothing I say will change your mind. If you are undecided, Lance’s forceful arguments—even though they are mostly bullshit and cherry-picked—might actually convince you. So why do it? Would you keep doing it if you were me?
Jacobsen: That is not a fair question. On the one hand, I am not you. On the other hand, I spend my interest and time differently, and my temperament is not the same as yours. That is clear. If I had the opportunity, I would tune in and join occasionally. Still, I am unsure if that would make much of a difference.
Rosner: Exactly. I intend the show to be entertaining, but it will not be. It is definitely not good. We have been doing it for nine years, and I do not see it becoming any better or more entertaining suddenly. So, we will see. Rotten Tomatoes.
Jacobsen: What else can we talk about?
Rosner: I am watching a bad British TV series.
Jacobsen: What is it called?
Rosner: Red Eye.
There is a good movie called Red Eye with Cillian Murphy and Rachel McAdams. It came out in 2005, so about twenty years ago now. That is a decent movie.
However, this TV series with the same name is turning out not to be worth the time. You cannot copyright titles—there can be dozens of shows, books, and movies all with the same title. Anyway, this one is about a bunch of murders taking place on a plane flying from London to Beijing, a ten-and-a-half-hour flight. Four people and a dog have been killed so far, and they are only about five or six hours into the flight. They will not turn around. They will not land. Their excuse now is that they are over Russian airspace.
However, there is much nonsense. The job of making a decent TV show is cutting out the bullshit. Things that are merely convenient for the plot cannot happen just because they are convenient. If what happens is going to be stupid, then that part of the plot should be discarded, and the writers should find a different way to get where they are going.
Now, if you have invested much time and there is one stupid thing that happens in six hours of a series, that can be excused. However, if stupid things keep happening, then you are watching a product made by either incompetent people, those who did not care, or those working without sufficient quality control.
About a month ago, I met with a friend of mine who also works on documentaries. It is tough to sell anything now, including documentaries. The major streaming companies have realized they no longer need to spend as much as they used to.
In addition to pitching their documentaries, I want to persuade them—though I probably will not succeed—to do a documentary about trying to sell a documentary under the current circumstances. It is challenging to sell content under normal circumstances, let alone in these unprecedented times.
Often, the development people you pitch to are lazy, uninterested, or too focused on something they personally want to see made. The best development people are working for the most prominent companies with the most money. So if you are pitching to smaller networks or streamers, you might be pitching to some asshole.
It would be fun to make a documentary about these pitches. Sure, you would burn some bridges, but maybe fuck it—those bridges are not that good anyway. It would be fun if you could get people to permit you to record the pitch and their reactions to it. Though I do not think a development executive would ever agree to that. So, you would have to go in, make the pitch, and then secretly record it. However, you could not use the recording in the documentary—only to help you remember what happened. Then you narrate what happened in the pitch. That would be part of the documentary.
Jacobsen: What about Trump and defaulting claims there?
Rosner: It is not full repayment. That is defaulting. It turns out that Trump has defaulted on at least nine bonds and loans since 1990. At least three times in the 1990s, four times in the 2000s, and then again in the 2010s. So, he had been defaulting on loans and was deemed a high-risk borrower for about twenty-five years before he ever ran for president. Those guys were full of it. I cannot put up with that anymore—it is bad for me physically. Fills me with stress hormones. It is bad for the points I am trying to make, because they shout me down with bullshit.
And the last bank that would loan him money in the 2010s was Deutsche Bank. Deutsche Bank has paid approximately $14.5 billion USD in fines for money laundering, much of which is tied to Russian oligarchs. They kept financing Trump because they were effectively bankrolled by Russian money, oligarchs, and probably the Russian government to some extent. When laundering money, you do not care about taking a haircut on repayment risk, because the whole point is to move rubles into dollars.
There is a scheme I learned about called “mirror trades.” Essentially, a Russian oligarch purchases a substantial number of shares in Moscow using rubles. At the same time, Deutsche Bank facilitates the sale of those same shares in London or New York for dollars. The oligarch owns the shares for zero seconds, but they have converted rubles into dollars. Totally illegal. Deutsche Bank was fined billions for doing that from 2011 to 2018.
So, yes, JD and Lance were right about one thing: banks will no longer loan to Trump. But it is not because “Democrats are mean.” It is because Trump has defaulted on roughly half a billion dollars’ worth of loans and bonds. And a bond is a loan.
Jacobsen: Was there anything you said in that session—or in any of those sessions—that you would want to correct?
Rosner: Yes. I said that the OMB—the Office of Management and Budget—calculated that the poorest 40% of U.S. households would lose money on the “big beautiful bill” because of service cuts. That was wrong. It was not OMB. It was a team of economists at Yale who calculated that. However, they were supported by other independent economists. So the point was not wrong, just the attribution.
And I try to be reasonable. For example, when they were yelling about all the “peace treaties” Trump signed—when we looked it up, yes, he had signed a few. Not nearly as many as Lance claimed, and not at a level that merits a Nobel Peace Prize, but yes, he did manage to secure the signing of some treaties. I said so. Then JD goes, “Oh, you wanted all those people to die?” —what the hell?
That was what JD was yelling about. That is not the point. If I had not been getting yelled at, I would have said, Of course, I do not want people to die. You are just throwing this peripheral thing at me, as if I do not believe Trump signed all these peace treaties, then I must want a bunch of people dead. That makes no sense.
I also acknowledged that if Lance is correct, that Pete Hegseth, whom he always hyping, is—well, I think he is a piece of shit as a person—but if Lance is right that Hegseth’s policies or demeanour have led to more people signing up for the military, then that is a good thing. Lance claimed it has improved morale and esprit de corps, and I said, ‘Fine, I will give him that.’ However, you could argue that esprit de corps based on dumb bro-ishness may not be the best thing for a modern military. But I did acknowledge the point.
Meanwhile, Lance never acknowledges anything. He never admits the other guy has a point. The closest I got was pressing him on military veterans’ pensions being cut off because they are trans. At first, he threw out every excuse for why it was not bullshit. But eventually he muttered, “Well, maybe—you would have to look into it.” That is as close as he ever comes.
And that cannot go on. I do not win. Every week, after one of these shows, I leave feeling exhausted and like I have let down our side. My side is the side that is less bullshit. Lance treats listening to conservative podcasts like a full-time job—fifty hours a week, while he is painting or doing whatever else. If you call him, you will hear Hannity in the background. Most people know Hannity from television, but he hosts a three-hour daily radio show, producing this content continuously.
It is mostly not accurate, but it builds a consistent worldview. They all echo each other’s talking points, hammer the same themes, so it feels airtight. I cannot counter that. Nor should I waste my time trying.
So, I will probably shut down that format and try something new. Something me-centric. For example, I will pose for Lance—totally naked. I looked up the rules: you can be nude on YouTube if it is for artistic purposes. You have to be careful that it is not presented sexually. So I will stand there naked, talk about physics, Lance will draw me or paint me, and I will start reading from my novel. Lance or JD can ask questions—about the physics, about the book—or give me shit.
It is good. They will be beta readers. Do you know what a beta reader is? It is somebody you give a copy of your—well, why it is called beta, I do not know, it probably should be alpha—but you give somebody some sample pages, and they give you notes back. So yes, that is what I am considering doing with the fucking show.
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): 2025/08/21
Rick Rosner frames falsifiability as the ability to find evidence that definitively disproves a theory. For his Informational Cosmology, two key falsifiers would be proving no objects older than 13.8 billion years exist, or confirming dark matter is exotic particles rather than stellar remnants. He predicts: (1) the structure of consciousness mirrors universal physics, (2) objects older than the Big Bang exist, and (3) black holes never collapse to singularities. Possible tests include unusual gravitational lensing, gravitational wave patterns from halo collisions, or variations in constants. He concedes Informational Cosmology currently lacks parsimony but aims to eventually unify constants and structure.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: First opener: When I say the term falsifiability—or even testability—what does that mean to you in the context of digital physics?
Rick Rosner: In the context of any experimental science, it means this: can you find something in the real world that shows your theory is wrong? If you say your theory predicts certain things and you have done the math to confirm it, then you check.
If the observations agree with your predictions, then your theory survives—at least for now. However, if the evidence is definitively not the way your theory predicts—not just small details off, but fundamentally wrong—then your theory has been falsified. That is how you do science: a theory has to make predictions, and those predictions must be testable. Otherwise, it is not a scientific theory.
So what would make me abandon informational cosmology? If we could show that nothing in the universe is older than the apparent Big Bang age of 13.8 billion years, that would be a serious problem. Informational cosmology says the universe is far older than that.
You would want to find ancient stellar remnants—white dwarfs, brown dwarfs, neutron stars—that predate the standard Big Bang age. According to stellar evolution, high-mass stars end as neutron stars or black holes, medium-mass stars become white dwarfs, and smaller stars can become brown dwarfs or just cool remnants. These cool slowly over billions of years, and their temperatures can, in principle, tell you how long they have been around.
The challenge is detection. White dwarfs can be faint, and brown dwarfs radiate very little, so they are hard to see, especially from far away. However, if you could measure the temperatures of these ancient stellar remnants precisely enough, you could estimate their ages. If none were found older than 13.8 billion years, that would directly contradict the claim that the universe itself is older.
Another possible falsifier is dark matter. Dark matter is primarily made up of old, burned-out stellar remnants. However, suppose future experiments prove that dark matter is instead dominated by exotic non-baryonic particles—something like WIMPs or axions—making up the vast majority of the universe’s mass. In that case, I would have to rethink. My model could allow for some exotic matter, but if observations confirm that exotic dark matter accounts for essentially all of it, that would seriously undermine informational cosmology.
So those are a couple of big potential falsifiers. Conversely, there is no such thing as a truthifier. You can only gather evidence in favour of a theory; you cannot ever prove a theory 100% accurate. That is not how falsifiability works.
However, you could say that “truthifiers” would be things like finding ancient objects—older than 13.8 billion years—or finding more heavy elements, like gold, than could plausibly have formed in the time since the Big Bang. There are also other possible numerical thresholds: background signal strengths, ratios of different types of matter and energy, or variations in measured constants. That kind of quantitative detail requires expertise I do not fully have.
Now, both the standard Big Bang theory and Informational Cosmology share the idea that the universe could be embedded in curved space, like three-dimensional space being the surface of a four-dimensional hypersphere shaped by gravity. However, I would argue that in Informational Cosmology, if you look back to the early universe, you would see a more convoluted space because there were collapsed remnants from previous cycles—black-hole-like regions connected along filaments.
If that is the case, what would it look like? You would expect a tremendous amount of gravitational lensing. Then again, the Big Bang universe also produces lots of lensing so that the distinction might be subtle. Still, I would expect that in extreme environments—say, near the event horizon of a supermassive black hole—some physical constants might shift slightly, like the electron–proton mass ratio or even the speed of light. General relativity might already account for that, but I doubt it fully.
Another possible test: if you could drop a probe into a black hole and show that there is not a region where the escape velocity exceeds the speed of light, that would be huge. Hawking radiation already shows that black holes are not perfectly black, but that is still consistent with relativity. If instead we discovered that the structure of space-time prevents infinite gravitational collapse—that black holes are never truly singular—then that would be a strong confirmation of Informational Cosmology. However, realistically, testing that directly is far beyond our current capability.
Jacobsen: So then, what are your three biggest predictions for Informational Cosmology?
Rosner: The first and biggest one is that the mathematics of the information in our consciousness—as a self-consistent, semi-contained whole—is deeply analogous to the physics of the universe. That is the core claim.
The second is that there are objects in the universe that are older than the apparent Big Bang age of 13.8 billion years.
The third is that black holes are never completely black. The supposed infinite gravitational pressure is tempered because space itself is shaped by information, and you can never set up an information distribution that produces actual infinite collapse.
What else? Let us call this number four. If you could somehow wait around for another five or even fifteen billion years, and the apparent age of the universe had not advanced in step—had not gone from 13.8 to 18.8 billion years in that span—that would be consistent with Informational Cosmology. The point is that the universe’s “apparent age” does not necessarily increase in lockstep with the passage of years. Five billion years from now, the universe might not look 18.8 billion years old; it might still appear closer to 13.8 billion years old.
Number five: most particle interactions are not time-reversible. Think about photons. Once a photon escapes from a star into interstellar space, it keeps going forever. There is not much for it to run into, and it does not reverse course. That is not time-reversible in any practical sense in an expanding, redshifted universe.
Now, someone might argue that if the universe eventually stopped expanding and collapsed—a “Big Crunch”—then maybe photons would come back, regaining the energy they lost as they blue-shifted. Frank Tipler, for example, has suggested a scenario where everything runs in reverse and even imagined that the resurrection of individuals could follow from that. However, I do not buy it.
Now, about galaxy structure. If the brain is an information processor that works by associations—neurons firing in patterns, dendrites efficiently encoding combinatorial signals, Bayesian networks pulling up the “most probable” associations—then physics must allow for that kind of structure. Moreover, the universe looks like an information processor itself: it has a filamentary network of galaxies, very much like the associative network of neurons. So, if the universe is an information-processing system, you would expect it to have that large-scale filamentary structure—which, observationally, it does.
On to nucleosynthesis. Heavy elements like gold form in extreme astrophysical events. Fusion inside stars can only build elements up to iron, because producing heavier nuclei consumes energy. To get beyond iron—to gold, platinum, uranium—you need cataclysmic events like supernovae or neutron star mergers. Those are among the only known processes that provide enough energy and density to create the heavy elements we see today.
Heavy elements beyond iron—like gold—form in violent astrophysical events. Supernova explosions and neutron star mergers provide the extra energy needed to fuse nuclei heavier than iron. If someone did the math, surveyed the universe, and showed that these processes make far more gold than we thought—say, three times as much—that could count against Informational Cosmology. Under IC, the universe is vastly older, which means it has had extra time for rare gold-making events to accumulate. If standard cosmology alone can explain the observed amounts of heavy elements, then IC loses one of its arguments.
Now, take the black hole example. Another way to falsify IC is by finding the wrong kind of dark matter. If you rule out compact-object dark matter—the idea that dark matter is made mainly of stellar remnants—that would be a direct hit.
Here is the issue: you cannot just say dark matter is “weird stuff that’s hard to detect.” To test it, you need a theory of what kind of particle it might be. Then you can design experiments. That is how we found the Higgs boson: theorists predicted it, and then CERN’s Large Hadron Collider generated conditions with enough energy to produce it. They accelerated protons to nearly light speed, smashed them together, and out popped Higgs bosons.
The same goes for dark matter. If a theory proposes a viable particle—say, a WIMP, axion, or something new—you can build experiments to try to detect it directly or indirectly. If experiments succeed, that is evidence for standard particle dark matter, and a blow to the idea that dark matter is old, primarily stellar cinders.
Dark energy is trickier, but again you would test it through its gravitational effects—how it curves space, shows up in gravitational lensing, or influences cosmic expansion. If someone came up with a modified theory of gravity that, for example, changes the inverse-square law slightly—like 1/r² becoming 1/r^1.98 under certain conditions—you could test that too.
If one of these alternative theories succeeds—if particle dark matter is confirmed, or a modified-gravity model works better than IC—that is a significant point in favour of standard cosmology. Right now, all we see are the large-scale effects: galaxies rotating too fast, gravitational lensing stronger than visible matter allows. If particle physics provides a solid candidate that matches those effects, then the exotic but testable framework of traditional cosmology wins.
Jacobsen: Would you expect weird patterns in the cosmic microwave background, or maybe a distinctive signal in the gravitational-wave background?
Rosner: Possibly. If every galaxy has a halo of old collapsed matter, then stable galaxies that last tens of billions of years might leave stable orbital structures in their halos. However, when galaxies collide, their halos would crash into each other, and that could create distinctive signals.
That is maybe the most falsifiable angle: if halos are full of compact remnants—white dwarfs, neutron stars, stellar cinders—then galaxy collisions should produce detectable events. The question is whether those collisions would generate enough energy, gravitational waves, or neutrino bursts to be observed.
People already look at interacting galaxies. If two halos full of compact objects collide, you might expect bursts of gravitational radiation or other signatures. However, you would need to run the math to see how frequent and intense such events would be.
Neutron stars and black holes are tiny, so direct collisions are rare. More often, two compact objects capture each other and orbit for centuries, gradually losing energy through gravitational radiation until they merge. That is what LIGO and Virgo detect: the inspiral and merger of compact objects. If Informational Cosmology is correct, there should be more such signals associated with halo interactions.
Jacobsen: Then there is parsimony. If Informational Cosmology ends up needing more free parameters than standard Big Bang cosmology, then by Occam’s razor, it is less efficient. That counts against it. And what about the universe’s information limits? The speed of light sets a hard cap on how fast information can move.
Rosner: You could ask whether the universe processes information at that limit, or whether it is constrained differently. Astronomers already compare the recession speed of distant galaxies to the speed of light. Once something recedes faster than light due to cosmic expansion, it slips permanently beyond our observable universe. That is a built-in information horizon. From an informational perspective, you should think about the speed of light not just as a physical constraint, but as the rate at which the universe computes its evolution.
Alternatively, it could go the other way. Instead of the speed of light determining how fast things can move, maybe the speed of light itself is determined by the relative motion of everything in the universe.
Proper Informational Cosmology should be more parsimonious, not less. A worked-out theory should explain a lot of the physical constants and ratios—like the electron-to-proton mass ratio—that Big Bang cosmology cannot. Right now, IC is half-formed and amorphous, so it does not pass that test yet. You got me there. But not forever.
Jacobsen: Anyway, that is a long-term problem. Any final thoughts?
Rosner: No. Thanks, however.
Jacobsen: We can do another one tomorrow—maybe focus on testability.
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): 2025/08/20
Rick Rosner explains his idea of “everything eats its tail” as matter under extreme pressure becoming degenerate, then differentiating into new states—essentially a universe as an information processor. Time itself emerges from this unfolding differentiation. He compares the incompleteness of his own ideas to George Gamow, who conceptualized the Big Bang before all the math was worked out. Asked about unsung physics heroes, Rosner points to Rosalind Franklin, whose crystallography enabled Crick and Watson’s DNA breakthrough but who died before Nobel recognition. He critiques the Nobel system as topical, political, and inconsistent, likening it to basketball MVP awards or Obama’s premature Peace Prize.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: You said, “Everything fucking eats its tail. Not as a general principle.” What did you mean in that schtick?
Rick Rosner: Look: matter under pressure becomes degenerate. Under super-duper pressure—black hole, neutron star pressure—it gets all the information squeezed out of it.
Right? Moreover, as that matter differentiates itself from a degenerate state, that is the equivalent of the beginning of a new universe. The different ticks of the clock as it differentiates—that is time. That is the deal. Those are the broad strokes for the universe as an information processor.
You have the arrow of time. You have some big-bang-like shit going on. It is big-banging, but not just one single Big Bang. I do not know. I am getting old and lazy now, so I should think about it more. However, there it is.
You could call it “information pressure”—degenerate matter differentiating itself. However, it is not a want. It is just what happens as time unfolds. It does not drive time as much as it is time.
That is near T=0. However, the process continues in a mature universe—long-range particles traversing space, losing mass as they share information across the universe. That is the whole fucking thing.
Jacobsen: How would you characterize this as ‘solving physics’? Moreover, how would you characterize it as solving math—like physics when the full math has not been fleshed out?
Rosner: Well, then it has not been fully solved. However, there it is. Look—George Gamow. He was not the best at math, but he thought his ass off. If you cornered him in a bar in 1956—or not even cornered him, just walked up at a party—and said, “Hey, I hear you have got a comprehensive theory of the origin and unfolding of the universe,” Gamow, half-drunk, would say:
“Yeah, I have got this whole thing where we have got nucleosynthesis, the universe starting at a point and exploding outward. In the first microseconds, this happens, then other stuff happens. There are a bunch of details we have not worked out yet. However, I think the universe originated with a Big Bang, and it accounts for the state of matter as we see it now. I do not have all the math, but that is the deal.”
Moreover, he was right. He figured that out. Even though he struggled with math and had to rely on others—Gamow and Hans Bethe, maybe others—they laid it out. Even though they did not have the math fully worked out, they had the idea.
Jacobsen: Who is an unsung physics hero?
Rosner: The most “unsung” legendary case is Rosalind Franklin. She was a crystallographer. She shot X-rays at crystals of unknown composition and configuration and created scatter patterns. Crick and Watson used those patterns to deduce that DNA was a double helix.
She probably would have gotten the Nobel Prize, except she died before they awarded it. Moreover, you cannot be dead and get a Nobel Prize. Also, they only give it to three people maximum.
So they gave it to Maurice Wilkins, another guy in their lab. Rosalind Franklin was dead, so the credit devolved onto him. Would he still have gotten it if she had been alive? I do not know. However, it took a couple of decades before she got proper recognition for her role in that discovery.
Moreover, I do not know who the other unsung people in physics are—because, well, they are unsung. However, given how the Nobel Prize works, I am sure there are plenty. Because you cannot be dead, and there can only be a maximum of three awardees.
Also, the Nobel Prize is topical and political. Something may look hot at the time, like it is opening up a gateway to everything, and then ten years later, maybe not so much. The physics prize reflects that, too, but I am not sure. I have not read a detailed critique of the Nobel Prize in physics to know whether they are generally on target.
The Nobel Peace Prize, and probably literature and economics too, can be controversial. It is a guessing game, akin to an MVP award in basketball. Even that is controversial because players have different skill sets, but at least they are playing the same game. In physics, people are not even playing the same game; they are working with different methods in different subfields. However, you only get one prize per year.
So, I do not know what a historian of science would say about the accuracy of the Nobel Prizes overall, but I am guessing the verdict would be mixed. Like Obama—he got the Peace Prize in 2009 just for not being George W. Bush. He had barely been president and had not done anything yet. It was more of a hopeful prize, like: “We will give it to him and hope he lives up to it.” That is a weird way to give an award.
And then he went ahead and made some blunders. He pulled the U.S. out of Iraq, which allowed the civil war there to continue. Lance will rant about that—he blames all Democratic presidents for everything and gives Republicans a pass.
George W. Bush invaded Iraq without a plan to maintain peace, thinking it would all be kumbaya after Hussein was taken out. It was not. Hundreds of thousands died. Then things were halfway stabilized, and Obama pulled out prematurely, leading to hundreds of thousands more deaths.
And then there was Gaddafi in Libya. They took him out because he was a brutal dictator. However, without him, Libya became a failed state. Tens of thousands die there each year from rampant criminality. Libya is also a gateway to the Mediterranean, so countless people travelling from Africa to Europe pass through, only to be murdered, enslaved, or held for ransom. So, Obama’s record has some significant blemishes.
However, I cannot tell you who is unsung in physics.
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): 2025/08/20
Rick Rosner highlights quantum mechanics as the most “neat” physics discovery, still awe-inspiring a century later. He explains the double-slit experiment, where photons interfere with themselves, revealing how reality behaves under uncertainty. This shows physics as the mathematics of incomplete information, defying classical assumptions. Beyond quantum theory, Rosner speculates that the scale of space itself changes inside supermassive black holes, potentially preventing singularities. He suggests that advanced civilizations might exploit these conditions, where constants like the speed of light could shift. For Rosner, both quantum experiments and cosmic extremes demonstrate how information may fundamentally define the universe.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What is a physics phenomenon that, when you first learned about it, you thought, “That is pretty neat,” and you still think so today?
Rick Rosner: You cannot beat quantum mechanics for that. It has a weird reputation. When it was first developed—mainly in the 1920s—it seemed bizarre to classical physicists. Planck started it off with blackbody radiation around 1900. Then people developed the mathematics, the matrices, to characterize it, and started exploring its implications.
It was so strange that quantum mechanics got a reputation for being incomprehensible. Feynman even said, “If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you do not.” That paradoxical reputation stuck.
However, now we have had it for a century, and physicists are at home with it. It has lost some of its aura of mystery, but it still gives significant clues about how the universe works—not teleologically, but structurally.
The cliché example is Schrödinger’s cat, which has been used in countless shows and movies, trying to seem deep. However, if you want one experiment that shows off quantum mechanics, it is the multi-slit experiment. Usually, it is presented as the double-slit experiment. Shine light on a plate with two holes, and the light going through will interfere with itself. You still get an interference pattern even if you shoot photons one at a time. That means each photon travels through both holes, as long as you are not measuring which hole it goes through.
If the universe does not know which hole the photon went through, then it went through all the holes. Moreover, that holds no matter how many holes you put in the sheet. If you put 58 holes in your plate and they are reasonably close together—like a shotgun blast—you can fire one photon at a time, and each single photon will effectively travel through all of the holes and eventually create an interference pattern.
Of course, you need to fire thousands of photons to build up a bright interference pattern, because each photon only lands once. However, the detector behind the plate maps exactly where each photon lands. Over time, the points build into a pattern that shows each photon interfered with itself.
That is a beautiful demonstration that quantum mechanics is the mathematics of incomplete information. It illustrates how reality behaves when you cannot perfectly characterize every particle at every moment if you don’t measure which hole the photon passes through, neither you nor the universe knows, so it passes through all of them.
If you try to stipulate afterward which hole each photon took, you are adding information that was never there. The pattern you predict that way would not match the interference pattern that appears. So, it is not dazzling exactly, but it is incredibly helpful—it reveals how the universe works under uncertainty.
Moreover, if you want a fun classroom demo: take a beaker of glycerin, put in a drop of ink, swirl it until the ink spirals apart, then carefully swirl in the opposite direction—you can recombine the drop. That is fun for a high school chemistry class, but nothing compares to QM for being legitimately awesome.
Jacobsen: If you were to speculate about something outside of quantum mechanics, or anything quantum-related, what would it be?
Rosner: I would guess that the scale of space itself changes radically near—or inside—the supermassive black holes at the centers of galaxies. The extreme concentration of matter could make space “tighter.” That might even be attractive for super-advanced civilizations, as they could accomplish more in less time.
I would have to think it through again, but it would be dazzling if constants of physics—like the speed of light, or the scale of space—shifted in such extreme conditions. General relativity already includes some of this, but I think a more developed information-based theory of the universe would differ from relativity at those limits.
I have been saying for years that black holes do not collapse to an actual singularity. You get enormous gravitational self-attraction, brutally strong, but not infinite. Not just because of quantum uncertainty, but because the very scale of space changes, which puts a limit on how close matter can compress inside a black hole. That, to me, would be dazzling—and an indicator of how information defines the universe.
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): 2025/08/20
Rick Rosner reviews Noah Hawley’s The New Alien Earth, calling it the most competent entry in the franchise since the first two classics. Set in 2120, Earth is ruled by megacorporations, including one led by Boy Cavalier, a shoeless boy genius who creates “Lost Boys”—children’s minds in synthetic adult bodies. As they battle new alien forms, including a turbo leech and a tentacled eyeball parasite, Hawley balances horror with restraint, often showing aftermath rather than gratuitous gore. Rosner praises Hawley’s inventive storytelling, comparing it to his reinvention of Fargo, and highlighting Timothy Olyphant’s role as a synthetic voice of reason.
Rick Rosner: You have seen The New Alien Earth—the Noah Hawley TV series.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Nope.
Rosner: And it is very competently done—the first two Alien movies—1979 and 1986. I do not know who did the first one, but the second one was James Cameron. Super competent guy. Not great with dialogue, but everything else he does is rock-solid.
Then there were, what, five or six or seven more? One by David Fincher—it had some fascinating ideas, but overall it was mostly a bummer. I feel like the TV show is the first thing in a long time to be smart about stuff. I am not stupid. I am schmott. Like in The Godfather, John Cazale as Fredo, always trying to prove himself to Michael. “I am not stupid, Mike!” I do not know if he says “schmuck,” but that is what I think of.
Moreover, I like the new Superman, which I have not seen yet. However, there has been some bummer Superman stuff. I trust James Gunn to do a competent job.
Anyway, this is episode three of eight in this season of Alien. In the first two episodes, a spaceship crashes into a skyscraper in an Asian city. Earth, at this point, is owned and run by five megacorporations. The year is 2120.
Now, the crash physics were bullshit. The ship would have had to come in a lot faster than it did. Moreover, if it had, it would have been destroyed. Instead, it comes down largely intact.
Jacobsen: That bothered you?
Rosner: Nah. You must give a little leeway. However, still—it would have required some anti-gravity tech, because the ship has no wings. By physics alone, it should have just plummeted, but instead it glides in. So, yeah, you give them that.
Anyway, the ship crashes into the skyscraper owned by the Prodigy Corporation. That company is run by a boy genius named Boy Cavalier. He is arrogant, a super-genius, and never wears shoes.
At the same time, he has developed the first synthetic beings with human consciousness transferred into them. Everything before this had been cyborgs—humans with replacement parts—or synthetics, entirely artificial beings. This is new.
Six people are the first to have their minds transferred. All of them were dying kids—because it turns out only a child’s mind is flexible enough. Adults cannot handle the transfer. These kids wake up in adult synthetic bodies—bodies with immense strength and speed.
Boy Cavalier decides the perfect first test is sending these “Lost Boys”—yes, Peter Pan reference—into the wrecked spaceship. Inside, they face the classic Alien we all know, plus four new alien types, each with different nasty traits.
By now, we are at episode three. Most of the people inside the skyscraper/spaceship wreck have made it out alive.
Moreover, now, at the beginning of episode three, they have stupidly brought all the specimens back to Boy Cavalier’s lab—his Bond-villain-style island. And, you know, of course, shit is going to get loose and mayhem is going to follow in ways we have not seen before—because this is a competent production.
Timothy Olyphant—do you know him? He is a snarky, casually arrogant-looking actor. He played a prick well in Justified. He is good at that. Here, he is bleached his hair white, and he plays a synth—an artificial being—who is the voice of reason. He is the one who says, “You are screwing up. If you do this, there will be consequences.” He is also the minder of the Lost Boys.
So anyway, we have got five and a half more hours of this season, and a lot is going to happen.
Rosner: What about the new types of aliens?
Jacobsen: Right. Well, there is one that’s a turbo leech. It drops from the ceiling on a strand of mucus. It latches onto your neck or some other juicy spot with a blood vessel, drains all your blood in about forty seconds, and goes from being the size of a pen to almost the size of a volleyball. Leaves you deflated, mummy-like.
Then there is the eyeball with tentacles. Just an eyeball with, like, sixteen to twenty tentacles. It tries to latch onto your face, poke out your eye, and replace it with itself. We saw it do that to a cat—and the cat did not survive.
There are also some variations on the classic facehugger-style grabbers. Moreover, something else—we do not fully understand what we have seen yet. For instance, there is this dangling watermelon-looking thing, with a little chute at the bottom and tentacles. It is going to open up and unleash hell when conditions are right. We will get to see it in action, and people are going to die. It is fun.
Jacobsen: What did you think was the most creative aspect of the new extraterrestrials?
Rosner: Honestly, the most brilliant move was Noah Hawley’s overall approach. He said he wants the show to recapture the same feelings of surprise, revulsion, and dread people felt watching the original Alien. Back then, part of the horror came from the shocking life cycle stages of the creature—each step was disgusting and terrifying.
Hawley does not waste time rehashing that. He assumes we already know it. Instead, while the classic Alien is still there—still formidable—he changes how we see it. For example, in one scene, it kills four people in about ten seconds. In another, it takes down maybe eight or ten in just as much time. However, the show does not linger on the kills. They happen in the background, off-camera, while the main action is elsewhere. Only after it is over does the camera shift back to reveal the carnage—the dismembered bodies everywhere.
That, I thought, was the smartest fucking thing. It is terrifying without being gratuitous.
He knows we have seen that shit before. We have seen it for forty-five years. Moreover, he is giving you a little nudge, like, “Yeah, we are not recycling old shit. Keep watching—we are going to show you new shit.”
So, for example, there is a scene where, after the Alien’s rampage, there is this decadent party—people dressed like the court of Louis XVI at Versailles. The Alien gets loose among them. They do not linger on the massacre itself, but they do show the aftermath: everyone is dead except one guy, cut in half, dragging himself and his entrails across the floor. So yeah, you get a little gore, but mostly the point is: we are not wasting your time on tired bullshit. You have got to appreciate that.
Moreover, this is Hawley’s thing. Look what he did with Fargo. He took the Coen brothers’ movie and spun it into five seasons, each a different story, but all with that same deadpan mix of meanness, humour, and violence. The Fargo world is full of criminals—some competent, some bumbling, some terrifying—set against ordinary, competent, fundamentally decent people who eventually confront them. Sometimes the good survive, sometimes they do not, but the tone always carries through.
Moreover, Hawley distilled the essence of the movie into a formula without repeating himself. He even played with setting—most of the series does not even take place in North Dakota, despite the name, but in other northern states like Minnesota. Each season tells a fresh story, with a plot that’s tricky enough you do not feel like you are just watching a remix. Like the last one—with Chris Rock as a 1960s crime boss. Not the casting you would expect, but it worked.
So he is a competent guy, no question. Moreover, he thinks ahead. He writes novels, too. Honestly, it frustrates me—guys like him get shit made, they get it done. Meanwhile, I get up, yell on Pod TV for an hour, then go back to bed. Maybe later I will talk Carol into giving me a hand job, then I will nap again. I have been sleeping a lot lately—I do not know if I am still shaking off COVID, or if I am just the laziest bastard alive.
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): 2025/08/20
Rick Rosner argues that U.S. public opinion on Israel is shifting because of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s far-right coalition and the ongoing Gaza war, which has killed tens of thousands of Palestinians. He links Netanyahu’s prolonging of the conflict to his corruption trial, suggesting political survival drives military escalation. Rosner condemns Israel’s deliberate targeting of journalists—186 killed since October 2023—as evidence of systemic brutality. While affirming support for Israel’s right to exist, he stresses that Netanyahu’s government acts corruptly and recklessly, undermining democratic values. This erosion of trust explains why Americans increasingly question Israel’s conduct and U.S. support.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: According to Politico, Americans are changing their views on Israel. Any thoughts?
Rick Rosner: Israel has lost much support—and for good reason. Israel continues to carry out military operations that kill large numbers of innocent Palestinians. And they are often unapologetic. Netanyahu, to stay in power, built a ruling coalition with far-right extremist parties. Because Israel has a parliamentary system with many parties, no one party usually wins a majority, so coalitions are necessary. Netanyahu has chosen to ally with the far right—politicians who openly support the mass displacement of Palestinians.
Netanyahu himself has been on trial for corruption since 2021. The prosecution wrapped its case in July 2024, and the defence closed in December 2024. But as long as he remains prime minister, the legal process cannot move forward to sentencing. He has every incentive to prolong the war in Gaza because ending it could mean his removal from office and exposure to conviction. At 75, he is trying to run out the clock—hoping that by the time appeals and delays are over, he will be too old to face prison.
So yes, tens of thousands of Palestinians have been killed, and part of Netanyahu’s motivation is avoiding prison. That is horrifying. Plenty of Israelis oppose him, but the opposition has been unable to oust him or shift military policy. This war has been ongoing since October 2023, marking twenty-one months of conflict. At this point, Israel has to take responsibility. Israel has many good people, but under Netanyahu’s leadership, the country is misbehaving.
I support Israel’s right to exist. I always have. But what Netanyahu’s government is doing is corrupt and brutal. When they bombed that tent of five Al Jazeera journalists, it was not an accident. Israel has killed 186 journalists in this conflict. You cannot kill that many journalists by mistake.
In the latest case, they claimed the prominent reporter had ties to Hamas. Even if that were true, he was working as a journalist at the time, not as a Hamas operative. And the four others killed with him had no such ties. So yes—Israel is deliberately targeting journalists.
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): 2025/08/20
Rick Rosner reflects on how Donald Trump reshaped American comedy, exhausting writers with endless scandals while deepening cultural divides. Unlike past celebrity meltdowns, Trump’s daily chaos fueled constant material but eroded shared humor, splitting audiences along political lines. Biden, by contrast, proved difficult to parody due to his low visibility. Rosner compares Trump to Hitler in comedy’s limits, yet notes historical satire thrived abroad. He critiques sitcom polarization—urban-liberal versus rural-traditional—and praises joke-dense shows like 30 Rock. Finally, he analyzes Netflix’s failed “moat” strategy, where overspending produced a golden age of streaming content without creating lasting competitive dominance.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What would you want to ask about it?
Rick Rosner: Here is something worth discussing: American comedy—like so many American things—has been reshaped by Trump. He divided the country so deeply that we no longer laugh at the same things. MAGA audiences will not even watch the same entertainment as everyone else. It is a problem when you have to cover the same subject night after night, year after year.
It was rough enough when Michael Jackson’s legal troubles dragged on for months—creepy, unsettling material that could only be joked about so much. It was rough when Britney Spears spiraled from entertainingly out of control to seriously out of control—shaving her head, being placed in a conservatorship. The same with Lindsay Lohan. And with Amanda Bynes, I am not even sure it was ever funny—her collapse from working comedian to full-blown crisis was too fast, too tragic.
But Trump? He is the worst of all. Because he spews out new, ridiculous nonsense every single day—and has been doing it for years.
He first appeared on the political scene in a serious way in 2015. Now it is ten years later. And the jokes have been exhausted—except he keeps doing new things, so comedians can come up with new jokes. But it has a depressing sameness. Conservatives ask, “Why do you always pick on Trump?”
The answer is because Trump does more horrible, absurd, and outrageous things than anybody else. Biden, by contrast, was tough to joke about because he kept out of sight. His team shielded him, which turned out to be a huge mistake. Biden should have been in front of Americans far more often. He should have owned up to the fact that he is old, that he makes verbal stumbles, but that he is still sharp on the issues. Instead, the White House lived in fear of another gaffe making the Fox News highlight reel.
I believe Biden, for the most part, had his act together. But he moved slowly and he sounded hesitant. If he had leveled with Americans, he might have lost some support, but not as much as he ultimately did. By hiding out, he made it very hard for comedians to make jokes about him, because there was so little to work with.
Meanwhile, it is not unfair to joke about Trump, because Trump constantly does corrupt and ridiculous things. But it is terrible for comedy. Hitler was even worse for comedy. In Nazi Germany, you could be killed for making fun of him.
And yet, there was some great comedy made about Hitler. The Great Dictator by Charlie Chaplin—though I have never seen it—is a classic. It came out before Hitler began slaughtering tens of millions. To Be or Not to Be, starring Jack Benny as a Polish actor involved with the resistance, is another classic from that time. But inside Germany, of course, no comedy about Hitler was possible.
In some ways, Trump is our Hitler. JD Vance once famously said that Trump was America’s Hitler. Many people have said the same, though Vance later changed his mind. The funny thing is, Trump does not care if you trashed him in the past—as long as you kiss his ass in the present.
Jacobsen: So outside of Trump, what about comedy in general?
Rosner: I have not thought much about comedy beyond Trump, except that we are very divided. Leanne Morgan just got her first sitcom on Netflix. She has been a stand-up comic for twenty or thirty years, very funny, with a style that appeals to both liberals and conservatives. The sitcom is produced by Chuck Lorre, who has been making hit comedies for over thirty years.
But the show itself was way too much of a traditional sitcom. My wife and I gave it about five minutes, and it felt too corny. Maybe they targeted it too much at rural audiences—I do not know.
We should probably come back to this after I’ve thought about it for a while. Like, 30 Rock is one of the funniest sitcoms of the past fifteen years. But it is definitely targeted at urban, big-city audiences—liberal-leaning folk.
And it is not funny because you are liberal. It is funny because they try to pack in three jokes a minute. The same team—Robert Carlock and Tina Fey—also did Girls5eva, which is another show where they try to cram in a hundred jokes into a half-hour episode. But a lot of those jokes rely on having a mainstream, liberal knowledge base, and maybe liberal attitudes.
Jacobsen: Do we have sitcoms that hit everybody, like Cheers, The Bob Newhart Show, or The Mary Tyler Moore Show?
Rosner: I do not know. Saturday Night Live does not work for conservatives. Every once in a while, they’ll have a conservative-leaning host like Shane Gillis, and his episode was funny. I think he got fired from SNL as a writer in 2019 for some offensive comments that resurfaced, but his stand-up is strong, and he has since built a big following.
But, anyway, we are all polarized in America, and it is bad for entertainment. And yet, paradoxically, we are also in a golden age of television. There are so many good shows.
Though maybe there were more five years ago, when the streaming services—Netflix in particular—were spending billions to establish an impregnable moat.
Jacobsen: What do you mean by “moat”?
Rosner: In business, a moat is when you get so far out in front of competitors that they cannot catch up. Google did this with search. They outperformed Ask Jeeves, Bing, and everyone else so decisively that “Google” became synonymous with Internet search. Even though Google’s search has declined in quality—been “shitified,” you might say—AI has partly “un-shitified” it. But Google still has that moat.
Netflix tried to do the same during COVID. They spent billions producing content, hoping to build an insurmountable advantage over other streaming services. The others—Disney+, HBO Max, Amazon Prime—tried as well. Nobody succeeded. But during that race, we got a massive number of new shows, many of them pretty good. The strategy was: spend billions now, lock in viewers, build the moat, and then coast.
But in the end, no one gained an unbeatable edge. The companies pulled back. And now production is way down.
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): 2025/08/20
Jake’s journey is extraordinary: once a comedy writer on Jimmy Kimmel Live!, he secretly prepared for medical school while working full time in television. He left comedy, completed med school and residency, and became an ER doctor. At the same time, he sold a screenplay that turned into a film starring John Cena and Alison Brie. Today, Jake balances medicine with consulting on The Resident, ensuring authenticity in medical scenes by teaching both technical accuracy and emotional nuance. His unique ability to merge creative storytelling with real-world expertise makes him one of the most remarkable behind-the-scenes figures in entertainment.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, who is Jake?
Rick Rosner: Jake is a fellow writer from Jimmy Kimmel Live!. While working there—which is more than a full-time job—he was secretly taking pre-med classes to get ready for medical school. Freaking Jake. For him to be quietly prepping for med school while writing comedy at that level is insane.
But that is precisely what he did. He left Kimmel as a skilled, successful comedy writer, went through med school and residency, and became an ER doctor—which is fantastic. Then he sold a screenplay that became a movie starring John Cena and Alison Brie. And he is still a practicing ER doctor. On top of that, he works on The Resident—the Fox medical drama starring Matt Czuchry and Emily VanCamp—as one of the on-set medical consultants.
Advertisement
https://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/pagead/ads?gdpr=0&us_privacy=1YYN&gdpr_consent=tcunavailable&tcfe=3&client=ca-pub-6496503159124376&output=html&h=600&slotname=2877544770&adk=1017230078&adf=1196390900&pi=t.ma~as.2877544770&w=300&fwrn=4&fwrnh=100&lmt=1762632822&rafmt=1&format=300×600&url=https%3A%2F%2Frickrosner.org%2F2025%2F08%2F20%2Fask-a-genius-1495-from-comedy-writer-to-er-doctor-and-hollywood-consultant-the-story-of-jake%2F&host=ca-host-pub-5038568878849053&h_ch=3624119425&fwr=0&fwrattr=true&rpe=1&resp_fmts=4&wgl=1&aieuf=1&aicrs=1&abgtt=6&dt=1762632822968&bpp=3&bdt=133902&idt=3&shv=r20251105&mjsv=m202511040101&ptt=9&saldr=aa&abxe=1&cookie=ID%3Dc78ac230aeaefd98%3AT%3D1762632196%3ART%3D1762632671%3AS%3DALNI_MaAjcp-AKZ1dDbU6BL2v8Cbv44TwA&gpic=UID%3D000012a6682dab08%3AT%3D1762632196%3ART%3D1762632671%3AS%3DALNI_MYH65oH7S8quNFmnah1Hd0bN0LJtw&eo_id_str=ID%3D70f70fe87a09a845%3AT%3D1762632196%3ART%3D1762632671%3AS%3DAA-AfjaS0WYAVXTo4jdD1oaYm6s_&prev_fmts=0x0%2C728x90%2C728x90%2C728x90%2C728x90&nras=1&correlator=4021913235105&pv_h_ch=3624119425&frm=20&pv=1&u_tz=-480&u_his=1&u_h=1260&u_w=2240&u_ah=1085&u_aw=2240&u_cd=24&u_sd=2&adx=768&ady=3001&biw=2192&bih=1005&scr_x=0&scr_y=1238&eid=95376583%2C95377330%2C95376893&oid=2&psts=AOrYGsmOu8IfV70xpAiin8tTJgg44w5m6iB002ZC8UdlX3PMeKnUjjWy2AokcKG_u4hojxZlK1hZrxwCcoOD12uzNIkhsefJdcd_wKhCv5lS%2CAOrYGskqhHju2ZOlV6AltbReOulV5lLH3Qh6IMTBrFKqAve7Fn5QefCYwx82t0aqx37etQA3BaI50rEzAQyAfNZCZnbHUYsHHQCukosaZ-w%2CAOrYGslRguvW-ux-3Du1JFuKcQk5rlQRGYrIyKZ1VrRHWLQkbviN1W–NMqWZ4DUXD0YvhvaNiTzHXPPxBEu4h0y8JgfkpZ6IeUMgzkXkw&pvsid=6637797152014029&tmod=1622098188&uas=0&nvt=1&fc=1920&brdim=33%2C34%2C33%2C34%2C2240%2C25%2C2192%2C1085%2C2192%2C1005&vis=1&rsz=%7C%7CpoeEbr%7C&abl=CS&pfx=0&fu=128&bc=31&plas=678x565_l%7C678x565_r&bz=1&pgls=CAA.&ifi=6&uci=a!6&btvi=1&fsb=1&dtd=7
Jacobsen: And here’s the kicker: he is not even a writer on the show.
Rosner: Right. He is one of three medical consultants making sure everything looks and feels authentic. He is incredible.
I wonder if the people on the show realize what they have. He is not just there to walk them through the intricacies of a spinal tap or inserting a tracheostomy tube. In an interview, he described teaching actors how their shoulders should move to realistically mimic the pressure of punching through the chest wall to reach a lung. He explained whether a procedure was routine or rare, where a doctor would outwardly appear calm but be terrified inside. He provides both technical accuracy and emotional truth. He also helps shape the medical scenarios so they fit the show’s character arcs.
And through all of this, people may not realize that Jake could as easily write the show as consult on it. He is remarkable. Freaking Jake.
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): 2025/08/15
In this candid interview with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, writer and television personality Rick Rosner delivers a sharp rejection of theology, arguing that religion in the United States has been hijacked by Christian nationalism and weaponized against humanist values. Rosner critiques theological defenses of free will, ultimate purpose, and divine creation, instead emphasizing science, informed will, and the causal chain of human decisions. The discussion also explores generational shifts in behavior, addiction to technology, and the manipulation of low critical thinking skills for political power. A thought-provoking exchange on atheism, metaphysics, and the misuse of faith.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: I want to pivot briefly to theology. We often focus on humanism and humanist values, along with the international declarations that enshrine those values. We have also discussed artificial intelligence, robotics, and automation, and how these intersect in possible and implausible ways. However, what if we take another angle and apply theology?
Rick Rosner: Right off the top of my head, I have to say: Fuck theology. I reject theology at this point. Here in America, Christian nationalism has hijacked much of Christianity. Millions call themselves Christian while supporting a cruel, anti-humanist, racist agenda. On the other hand, science works.
The same people pushing a Christian nationalist agenda are often profoundly anti-science. So, at least where I live, I have little patience for religious arguments, because religion here is being weaponized against the people. Moreover, I do not hear many loud Christian voices denouncing these false Christians. Where are they? Are they ducking down?
I admit, I duck down sometimes, too. I post less on social media now because my wife insists I avoid trouble. She worries we could be arrested or turned away at the border when we return from visiting our child in the UK. Moreover, I see her point, so I have pulled back. However, even if I am quieter now, I still wonder: why do we not hear pastors denouncing Trump and his agenda, calling out the fact that those who support him are fake Christians? I am sure there are some, but why are there not more?
Jacobsen: So go ahead. Outside of politics, what is your general stance on theology—beyond “fuck theology,” political concerns, and safety concerns?
Rosner: If this were a different time, I might be willing to entertain some arguments. However, not the standard ones—not the mainstream religious claims that Jesus had special powers, or that Muhammad had special powers. I do not buy any of that.
Now, you can talk about possible theologies of creation. Powerful beings could exist in our universe, or even in other universes. However, I do not believe powerful beings are necessary for creation. I think civilizations and beings could survive for millions—maybe billions—of years.
Over that span, they could become highly knowledgeable and able to do extraordinary things, even harnessing cosmic forces. They might be able to travel to the centers of galaxies and manipulate vast energies—perhaps even alter the informational fabric of a universe. They would appear to have the powers of gods, but they would not be gods. They would not transcend physics.
So I am not very patient with theology. We can talk about philosophies of existence, but I have already explored that topic extensively. Science is incomplete, but that does not mean the missing pieces are mystical or theological. I do not think we should be patient with people who argue mysticism, because misapplied religion is one of America’s problems right now.
As I have said many times, fifty years ago conservative think tanks realized it was easier to manipulate and anger people with low critical thinking skills—and to make them politically active—than to mobilize the more thoughtful. They cloaked this manipulation in religion and patriotism. Now, the Republican Party is thick with people easily swayed by nonsense.
Every time something happens politically, conservative pundits churn out low-IQ, bad-faith arguments. Their base eats it up, even knowing it is false, because they enjoy seeing their political enemies angered. They support nonsense not because it is true, but because it irritates rational people. So no, this is not a time to sing Kumbaya with the misuses of Christianity.
Jacobsen: What are your thoughts on theology’s attempt to defend free will—a libertarian sense of free will?
Rosner: That is horseshit, too. There is no free will. There is informed will. Your brain makes decisions based on the information it has gathered. Ideally, your brain makes the best decisions possible with the information available. You do not want your brain working against you with an agenda separate from your conscious mind.
However, often it does. Your brain makes decisions that are not perfectly aligned with your conscious wishes. The easiest place to see that is sex. People make bad decisions when driven by sexual impulses—horny choices that are terrible in hindsight. Everyone does, or nearly everyone. Now Gen Z—well, you gave me some survey results on that a couple of nights ago.
The surveys show that Gen Z is having less sex, hooking up less, and even masturbating less. They seem to have stepped into a world dominated by technology—social media, streaming, video games—at the expense of following the biological imperative to, as you put it, “get the jizz out.” You also mentioned that Gen Z is not drinking as much. Is that the best possible outcome? Are they exercising informed will, or are they simply seeking the serotonin bursts that come from TikTok, video games, and the endless dopamine loops of social media?
Much of the digital content delivered through our phones has evolved to addict us. It provides short-term satisfactions we find compelling, even addictive. So yes, even when tech replaces drunken, horny behaviour, it is still addictive in its way, pushing us toward behaviours that are not in our long-term best interests.
Rather than talking about free will—which suggests some magical, transcendent power to make decisions independent of information or causation—we should talk about informed will. There is no “magical deciding juice” that exists on a higher plane, free from influence. The world is the world, and it is the only thing we have to live in. The best you can do is make the best decisions possible for yourself and recognize where your brain may struggle to align with your conscious goals.
Human beings are not outside the causal chain. We are part of it. We are not independent sources of causation in the universe.
Jacobsen: So human beings are not a source of causation in the world?
Rosner: We are part of chains of cause and effect. Take me, for example: when I get tired, I sometimes pick at myself—my scalp, my skin. I can observe myself doing this and say, “Get up, break the cycle, and do something else.” That is will. However, it is not free will. It is informed will—my brain observing a pattern, recognizing it, and triggering me to stop.
I used to bite my nails. Now I pick at clogged pores. I can get stuck in that cycle for half an hour. However, when I recognize it, I sometimes break out of it. That is not free will; it is my brain using self-observation to redirect behaviour.
My OCD plays into this, too. It drives me to go to the gym multiple times a day. From the outside, it looks like tremendous willpower. However, on the inside, it is also quirks, compulsions, and a preference for routines and numbers. It is both discipline and disorder, all fitting together.
It is the same argument. There is no free will. There is no mystical determination juice existing on some higher level that says, “You are going to do this.” No—I act for reasons tied to the information my brain has collected and the way my brain functions.
Moreover, that is fine. You can call it will, you can call it other things, but you cannot call it free will. Humans can be sources of causation—links in the chain of events—but not free agents.
Take Nelson Mandela. When he decided to form the ANC and devote his life to ending apartheid, without him, events would not have unfolded in the same way. He was an agent of causation—a nexus for change. However, he was not a “free” agent; he had countless forces acting on him.
Jacobsen: What about the metaphysical and theological arguments for a final or ultimate purpose—teleology—for the universe?
Rosner: No. Not. There is no ultimate purpose. Some things persist better in the universe. For example, rocks can last billions of years under the right conditions. Physics favours stability—planets in stable orbits, galaxies not colliding. The way physics unfolds allows some structures to persist for vast periods.
Now, when creatures evolve that can model the world in consciousness, they gain a different kind of existence. Specific forms of conscious life perpetuate themselves, following emergent principles that arise from basic ones. Things that are not contradictory to physics can exist and persist. However, that does not imply teleology.
Convergent evolution shows this clearly. Eyes have evolved independently in countless species. That does not mean the universe “wants” eyes. It means the physics of light makes eyes evolutionarily advantageous, and so eyes develop in similar ways wherever conditions allow. Physics does not want anything. Principles of existence do not want anything. They permit, without intention.
It is hard, when speaking casually, not to sound as if evolution “wants” something. However, it does not. Evolution is not an entity. It is a process—an uncountable number of events affecting uncountable organisms. Because of physics, certain regularities emerge, but that is not the purpose. That is not teleology.
Jacobsen: What about the idea of God as the sustainer, maintainer, and creator of the universe—a theological metaphysics?
Rosner: No. Not. No. Fucking no. You keep asking me the same question. You do not need a God. In some situations, perhaps a synthetic universe could be created by some advanced being in another universe—but that creature would not be God. It would be a biological entity in its world, capable of creating simulations. That is not divine. It is more like a video game developer building an intricate program.
Existence can always be traced back to something that plausibly arose naturally. At some point, the distinction between a “natural” and a “synthetic” foundation may blur—like turtles down, where you cannot tell if one layer is “natural” or “synthetic.” However, none of this implies God. None of these layers requires a transcendent, mystical being. Everything can unfold through emergent principles of existence.
Jacobsen: What about the argument that reality is unitary, and therefore reality is God?
Rosner: I do not even know what “reality is unitary” means. If it means everything is one thing, then fine—you can call it one thing.
Jacobsen: Science studies the principles of existence. They are unified enough to allow consistent laws of nature and physics.
Rosner: But does that make it God? No. It is not mystical. It is not transcendent.
Jacobsen: Christopher Harding pointed this out to me in his last interview—possibly the last interview he ever gave before he died. He said that whether you call it “nature,” “the laws of physics,” or “God,” at some point you are just talking about the same thing in different words. These terms break down.
Rosner: Yes, I could call my dick God. That does not make it God. You can call anything “God,” but naming does not transform it into divinity.
Jacobsen: But Rick, if you call your dick God, you have got it all backwards, you dog. Final question, based on your responses today about metaphysics, biology, and God—are you finding yourself less tolerant of theology, less inclined even to give airtime to God-talk?
Rosner: Yes. Definitely. Because of what has happened—the left in America, or more broadly, people who are not Trump supporters, the non-assholes—have been tolerant. They have waited for a workable majority of Americans to stand up for decency.
Moreover, what has that tolerance gotten us? The loss of decency. So yes, I am not willing to entertain arguments that get misused by assholes.
Jacobsen: Would you say you are leaning more toward atheism or agnosticism at this point?
Rosner: I do not love the label “atheism” because many atheists are assholes. However, in practice, yes—I am an atheist in the sense that I do not believe in a transcendent creator, which is part of a reasonable definition of God.
That said, physics is incomplete. Metaphysics is incomplete. Does that leave open the possibility of a transcendent being? Yes—it is not precluded in my understanding. Do I think one is necessary, in my limited understanding? No.
However, discoveries hundreds, thousands, even millions of years from now may point to or even prove something beyond current comprehension. I do not see that in today’s landscape, however.
Jacobsen: And we are out of time.
Rosner: Yes. I will see you tomorrow.
Jacobsen: See you then. Thank you.
Rosner: 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): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/08/15
Scientific breakthroughs have often depended on timing, privilege, or sheer luck. From Alexander Fleming’s accidental discovery of penicillin to Isaac Newton’s plague-era “miracle year,” history shows that chance favors the prepared mind. Yet, privilege—like that of Prince Louis de Broglie or Tycho Brahe—also played a decisive role. In stark contrast, today’s scientific progress is undermined not by fortune but by politics and misinformation. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., now U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services, has advanced anti-vaccine conspiracy theories, opposed germ theory, and fueled deadly consequences, from Samoa’s measles deaths to threats against cancer vaccine research.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: And you asked who the other lucky scientists were, besides the “lucky” Dick Feynman.
Rick Rosner: Well, Feynman had a reputation for bedding many women, and in an era when sex was not easy to come by, he got laid quite a bit. Let us hope his numbers were not as high as they could have been—after all, some of those conquests reportedly included graduate students’ wives and girlfriends. It would have been better if he had not attempted to sleep with everyone.
However, I was not thinking of him. I was thinking of Alexander Fleming, who discovered penicillin when Penicilliummould landed in one of his Petri dishes. It killed everything around it, and he famously asked, “What is this?” That was pretty lucky—and possible only because he was observant and knowledgeable enough to recognize its significance. As Pasteur said, “Chance favours the prepared mind.”
Isaac Newton was also fortunate. The plague shut down Cambridge University and sent everyone home. Newton spent months at his mother’s home. He had already been sent away as a child after his mother remarried a man who did not want him around—a fact that certainly did not help his temperament—and during this isolation, he laid the foundations for calculus and gravity. This period became known as his annus mirabilis, or “miracle year.” Both Newton and Einstein had miracle years in which they produced transformative work at extraordinary speed.
Another example is Prince Louis de Broglie. He was a prince, with the wealth to pursue theoretical physics and develop the de Broglie wavelength. Tycho Brahe also benefited from privilege. His resources allowed him to pursue astronomy and track planetary orbits. In a duel, however, he lost part of his nose and wore a prosthetic, often said to be made of gold, for the rest of his life.
If you were wealthy enough in specific eras, you had the luxury to pursue science. That is a form of luck. Contrast that with the United States now, where science funding faces constant political pressure.
This brings us to Robert F. Kennedy Jr., now Secretary of Health and Human Services. He has a long record of promoting medical misinformation, particularly about vaccines, autism, HIV/AIDS, and COVID-19, which alarms public health experts. His late wife, Mary Richardson Kennedy, died by suicide in May 2012, found hanging in a barn at their home. Before this, she had discovered his journal from 2001, which detailed sexual encounters with thirty-seven women—entries he referred to as his “lust demons.” Divorce filings at the time described him as a compulsive adulterer and substance abuser.
After her death, Mary’s family clashed with the Kennedys over her burial, a dispute that went to court. Meanwhile, Kennedy has continued to advance fringe medical theories, including opposition to the germ theory of disease, and more recently attempted to pressure a medical journal into retracting a study showing no link between aluminum in vaccines and autism or allergies. The journal refused, finding no evidence of misconduct.
In short, scientific luck has often depended on privilege, timing, or sheer accident—while today, politics and ideology can actively undermine it.
What a fuckhead. This is one of the best-established theories in biology. We have known about germs for centuries, and vaccines have been used since the late 1700s. Germ theory is a foundational part of medicine, but he does not believe germs cause disease. Some of the unluckiest scientists in history might be those trying to work in America today under these people.
Also, RFK Jr.’s anti-vaccine policies—cutting off vaccination programs—will kill tens of thousands of Americans, and probably tens of thousands more outside of America. He has already been linked to deaths in Samoa.
He travelled there and convinced leaders that vaccines were dangerous and unnecessary. To be clear, there are two Samoas: the independent country of Samoa and American Samoa. In independent Samoa, officials temporarily suspended the national measles vaccination program in 2018 after a tragic medical error involving the improper preparation of vaccines. Anti-vaccine activists, including RFK Jr., amplified misinformation during this period. As a result, vaccination rates collapsed, and when a measles outbreak struck in 2019, eighty-three people died, nearly half of them children.
That record makes him not just reckless but dangerous. His opposition to vaccination is not limited to measles or COVID. It extends to blocking research into mRNA vaccines, including those showing promise in preventing or treating cancers. We are in the early days of vaccines that could protect against cancers that are otherwise very difficult to treat. However, his policies risk shutting down that entire line of research.
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): 2025/08/15
In this in-depth conversation, Rick Rosner reflects on how five years of watching well-written television with his wife, Carole, has sharpened his writing skills and ability to anticipate dialogue and plot twists. He shares insights on Noah Hawley’s upcoming Alien series, the evolution of science fiction horror, and the role of originality in storytelling. Rosner also discusses Mel Brooks’s creative longevity, his own struggles with writing about the future amid AI and political upheaval, and broader reflections on cosmology, intelligence, and scientific discovery. With humor and humility, he compares himself to Feynman, Gamow, and Darwin—highlighting the complexity of intelligence.
Rick Rosner: Every evening, Carole and I watch about two hours of television, but almost exclusively quality shows—well-written things. If the writing is bad or the pacing is too slow, we usually turn it off. This has been our routine since COVID, so for more than five years now. I have learned a lot from it. I was not a bad writer before this, but after watching so much well-written material, I have improved. Television in the 1960s and 1970s was largely formulaic and cliché-driven. In the 1980s, there were some exceptions, but much of mainstream television was still weak. Later, however, various market forces and the rise of cable and streaming services pushed the medium into what many people call a “Golden Age of Television,” beginning in the late 1990s and especially the 2000s. Since then, it has been possible to find consistently strong shows. I would guess this has made me a better writer.
Carole and I can often predict the next plot twist or even the following line of dialogue. When I am listening to stand-up comedy in my car, which is all I listen to, I can often guess the punchline too. That suggests I might be getting good at this—because I may be able to write material that surprises people, or at least has the ring of authentic writing. I need to write more. I am struggling to finish my book, set shortly, because the future keeps arriving every day in the form of artificial intelligence advances. And then there is the absurd present, arriving daily in the form of Donald Trump and his supporters. Both things make it hard to predict what the future will look like. What will happen to America in two or three years? In five years? I have had to give up on trying to portray the future with precision. Instead, I must portray it in a way that is entertaining and semi-plausible, because trying to get it exactly right is nearly impossible. Rotten Tomatoes.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Have you seen any new science fiction?
Jacobsen: Noah Hawley, who creates excellent television—he made Fargo and Legion, both critically acclaimed—also writes novels. He is interested in portraying near-future scenarios, among other themes. He is currently developing a television series based on Alien. You have seen some of the Alienfilms, right? The first two—Alien (1979), directed by Ridley Scott, and Aliens(1986), directed by James Cameron—are regarded as classics. The sequels after that received more mixed reviews. Hawley’s series is titled simply Alien. It will air on FX (and Hulu/Disney+ internationally). It is planned as an eight-episode season and is set on Earth, making it the first Alien story primarily set here. The timeline is before Ripley’s era—decades before the events of the original Alien. The plot reportedly begins when a research vessel crashes, unleashing alien organisms. Instead of open-world chaos, much of the story initially takes place in enclosed environments, like ships and corporate-controlled zones, which fits the tradition of the franchise: horror in confined spaces. That has always been part of Alien’s effectiveness—it is creepier, more claustrophobic, and more practical for production. In the original film, much of the gore was implied rather than shown, which heightened the tension. The first Alien was released in 1979, and the franchise has since become one of the most influential in science fiction horror.
At the latest, so it is pushing 50 years old, which is crazy. However, it assumes you are familiar with what the xenomorph can do. Instead of showing the Alien’s attacks directly, they show the xenomorph arriving somewhere, then the camera cuts away for a few seconds. You hear chaos and violence in the background, and when the camera returns, everyone is dismembered and blood is everywhere. You do not see the violence unfold—at least not yet. The show smartly says, “We know how this works,” and moves forward. That is a good sign, because it means this is not just a rehash—a competent production team makes it.
Jacobsen: Any thoughts on the new aliens in Alien?
Rosner: It has the classic xenomorph—the long skull, biomechanical body, and acid for blood. However, the story also introduces other alien specimens collected in deep space. One is a tentacled eyeball that can morph—sometimes it has a single pupil, many. We first see it inside a dying cat, having replaced the cat’s eye. The cat drags itself into view, barely able to move, and collapses after the creature abandons it in search of another host. There is also a slug-like parasite that drops from the ceiling on a string of ooze. If it attaches to you, it drains your blood within half a minute, leaving you mummified, and then rolls off as a swollen bag of blood. It is precisely the kind of grotesque invention you would expect from a show like this. Moreover, there are still more creatures we have not seen yet.
The series also has a Peter Pan theme. This is about 100 years in the future, where synthetic humans exist. The company at the center of the story has developed the first real human brains in synthetic bodies. The catch is that only children’s brains are flexible enough to survive the transplant. So you have kids in adult bodies who call themselves the Lost Boys and take names from Peter Pan. We have not seen them fully in action yet—they are still naïve, even more so than ordinary kids, since these were children who spent their lives sick and bedridden. Now, given functioning bodies, they are meant to become the soldiers fighting the alien creatures. It is a clever idea. It is fun to watch television made by smart, capable people.
I read an interview with Mel Brooks, who is 99 years old. He talked about creating Get Smart in 1965. They asked him how the shoe phone idea came about. He said one day all the office phones rang at once, so he picked up his shoe as a joke, pretending to answer it. That led him to realize that the worstplace to hide a phone would be inside a shoe. Until he said that, I had never thought about how impractical that gadget was. You assume it is another James Bond–style device, but in reality, it is terrible.
At 99, Brooks even has a new project in development—a television version of Young Frankenstein. That is a brilliant idea, since his 1974 film is a classic. It is inspiring to see the work of brilliant people. I have mentioned before what I call the tic-tac-toe theory of television: if you have three key people in central positions who are all excellent, you can make a great show despite other constraints. On the other hand, having three weak people in key roles will doom a production, regardless of the rest of the team’s talent. With someone like Mel Brooks involved, studios will surround him with strong collaborators. When you have a creative force who has been making innovative work for 75–80 years, chances are the result will be worthwhile. So, there you go.
Jacobsen: Any new thoughts on cosmology?
Rosner: I have been thinking about how much I have not been thinking about cosmology. I feel that I have solved a lot of the problems I originally set out to solve—not mathematically, but conceptually. That might just be me fooling myself at my age, but I can at least describe in words what I think is going on. That feels like part of the battle. George Gamow, who was one of the earliest popularizers of the Big Bang theory, was not firm in mathematics. When he needed detailed calculations, he would turn to others for help. He thought conceptually, and if he needed mathematical support, he found people who could do it. Even Einstein was not an elite mathematician compared to pure mathematicians of his time. That was not a flaw in Einstein so much as a reflection of the growing divide, even by 1910, between pure mathematics and theoretical physics. As a physicist, he would not necessarily have mastered every mathematical tool available. He relied on mathematically inclined colleagues—one suggested tensor calculus, which gave him the formal framework for general relativity. So there is a history of great physicists who were not masters of advanced mathematics but still conceptualized fundamental theories.
Of course, there have also been physicists who could do the math in their heads at remarkable speed. Richard Feynman, for example, was famous for being able to approximate solutions to almost any problem on the spot. He reportedly had a standing bet that if you presented him with a solvable problem, he could get within 10% of the answer in about a minute. That is someone who could construct mathematics quickly and intuitively.
Jacobsen: Do you think you are smarter than Feynman was?
Rosner: I do not know. Feynman often claimed he was not brilliant, just persistent and curious, with a healthy set of attitudes about the world. I, on the other hand, am highly distractible and lazy—which is not necessarily all bad. Gamow, for instance, was known for his flaws. He was a heavy drinker. My father heard stories about it because Gamow lived in Boulder, my hometown. My stepfather played poker every week with Ted Volsky, a chancellor at the University of Colorado and something of a fixer. Universities, like movie studios, are full of personalities and scandals, and people like Volsky had to manage what came out publicly.
In Hollywood during the 1930s, there was Eddie Mannix, who worked as a studio fixer. He kept scandals—actors’ affairs, affairs between men and women, same-sex relationships, and even criminal behaviour like Errol Flynn’s notorious relationships with underage girls—out of the tabloids. I suspect Volsky played a similar role at the university level. Through him, my stepfather heard stories about Gamow’s drinking and the scrapes he got into. Boulder is at the base of the Flatirons, and if you drove drunk up Flagstaff Mountain, it was easy to crash. Gamow needed help out of some dangerous situations like that.
So yes, Gamow had his foibles. He died relatively young, likely connected to his heavy drinking. However, even with his flaws, he was able to conceptualize the Big Bang and make lasting contributions to science. As for me—well, I have got my flaws, plenty of them.
Jacobsen: Do you think you are more intelligent than him?
Rosner: I do not know, because intelligence is made up of so many different qualities. I am good at thinking about ideas. From time to time, I have been good at thinking in terms of what I would call the “poetry of physics.” When Einstein spoke about God or the beauty of physics, when physicists talk about elegance, what they mean is the poetry of physics. If you are weighing competing ideas, it is often the elegant and resonant ones that turn out to be true, rather than the clunky ones. Special relativity is elegant. General relativity is elegant. Newton’s universal gravitation—that everything attracts everything else, that the same force that makes an apple fall keeps the planets in orbit—that is very elegant. The planets are constantly falling toward the Sun, but with enough velocity that their parabolic descent becomes an elliptical orbit. That is beautiful.
There are also stories about how discoveries come to people. Friedrich August Kekulé, the chemist who proposed the ring structure of benzene, said he had a dream—he saw a snake seizing its tail—and that inspired his idea of a circular molecule. Francis Crick and James Watson, meanwhile, famously worked out the structure of DNA, but they relied on Rosalind Franklin’s X-ray crystallography images. They saw from her diffraction patterns that DNA had a helical structure, and from there they inferred the double helix. The story has often been told with embellishments—that they had drinks beforehand, that they “stole” a look at her data—but the essential fact is that Franklin’s work was central, even though she did not get proper credit at the time.
There are plenty of scientists who did their work methodically, without alcohol or shortcuts. Einstein himself coined the term Sitzfleisch, meaning “sitting flesh,” to describe the ability to sit and think hard for long periods. Ironically, during his most creative period, he was a clerk at the Swiss Patent Office, where employees worked at standing desks. They were not allowed to sit, which must have been exhausting. However, it was in that environment that he did his groundbreaking thinking.
So, I do not know if I am brighter than any of these people. Intelligence is complicated.
Jacobsen: Who do you think is the most accidentally great scientist or philosopher?
Rosner: Charles Darwin immediately comes to mind. My wife has written a biography of my parents’ marriage, based on a trove of love letters she discovered. She has called it Dear Ruth, and it is good—she should try to publish it. She tends to be her own devil’s advocate, to talk herself out of things, but the book deserves to be seen. She should even write a sequel about what happened afterward, because those two people produced me, and my childhood was unusual enough to be a vivid portrait of the 1960s and 70s. That one should be called Mooncalf. Do you know the term “mooncalf”? It refers to a dreamy, spacey person, someone always staring off at the moon, like a calf staring at the sky.
It is somebody who is lost in their little world, which I was. I missed out on a lot of family drama because I was a mooncalf, which brings us to Darwin. Darwin did not know what he wanted to do. He was a mooncalf too. He went to university and studied theology, preparing to become a clergyman, but he did not want that. He considered medicine as well, but abandoned it. He was fairly aimless, and his wealthy family—connected to the Wedgwood porcelain fortune—did not push him to settle down as quickly as most young men in Victorian England would have been forced to.
They eventually found him an opportunity. Captain Robert FitzRoy of HMS Beagle was preparing for a round-the-world survey voyage. FitzRoy was prone to depression and needed a gentleman companion to dine with and talk to; as captain, he could not socialize with the crew. Darwin was offered the position. On the five-year journey, he collected thousands of specimens, saw the eroded cliffs of South America, and famously observed the finches and other unique species of the Galápagos Islands—species isolated enough to evolve into distinct forms found nowhere else.
So, almost accidentally, because he was a mooncalf without a plan, Darwin ended up with experiences no one else on Earth had. He saw the world for five years, thought deeply about it, and found exactly the kind of raw material his scientific imagination needed. When he returned, he spent 20 years analyzing, writing, and slowly developing his ideas. His friends finally pressured him to publish because another naturalist, Alfred Russel Wallace, had independently arrived at a theory of evolution by natural selection. Darwin was generous—he and Wallace co-presented their ideas in 1858—but Darwin had years of notes and a massive manuscript nearly ready. That became On the Origin of Species(1859).
Darwin later wrote The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals (1872), which emphasized that animals, like humans, experience and display feelings. When people think of Darwin, they often think of the phrase “nature red in tooth and claw,” but that was not his. That came from Tennyson. Darwin himself was not fixated on brutality—he saw animals as individuals capable of feeling. He wrote an entire book about their expressions of emotion.
So Darwin was a great man, shaped by chance and circumstance. If he had not gone on the Beagle, who knows what would have happened? However, it was a remarkable twist of fate.
Jacobsen: All right, I have got to go. Tomorrow then—I will see you.
Rosner: Thanks, bud.
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): 2025/08/14
Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner discuss Gen Z’s deep reliance on digital devices, reduced face-to-face interaction, and declining sexual activity. Using the “hermit crab” analogy, Rosner suggests Gen Z feels vulnerable without phones but functions well in a tech-supported world. Data shows historic lows in partnered sex, masturbation, and romantic relationships among young people, driven by over-entertainment, anxiety, and social challenges. While this trend could lower birth rates and ease environmental pressures, it also raises economic concerns for consumer-driven capitalism. The conversation explores potential societal shifts, AI integration, and acceptance of future human modifications as adaptation strategies.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Alright. Here is the next topic—one we have touched on in recent days: younger people and their apparent ineptitude when not addressing the world through their devices.Any thoughts?
Rick Rosner: It is not too bad yet, but it appears in moments like the Gen Z blank stare. If you try to speak directly to a Gen Z person, some may be disoriented because they are unaccustomed to face-to-face interaction. This could worsen over time. Is it a problem?
My analogy is hermit crabs. A hermit crab seeks empty shells to protect its vulnerable back half, moving into larger shells as it grows. If removed from its shell, it is exposed and fragile. Similarly, Gen Zers who live entirely through devices seem like hermit crabs without shells—vulnerable and awkward without their phones.
However, they are not typically stripped of their devices. They live in a world supported by their phones, and that works for them. In the future, humans who rely on devices may seem weak without them, but since most will keep their devices, they will function fine. Older generations, accustomed to more direct interaction, may find it annoying, but that could be an “old person problem.”
If, for example, China launched an EMP attack, wiping out electronics, people would face serious trouble, but that scenario is unlikely. There are real-world implications, yet the dependence on devices is probably here to stay.
One of the topics we have discussed most is the decline in sex and reproduction. Forming relationships and connecting with others requires in-person interaction, which can be challenging for many Gen Zers. Hooking up can be mediated through dating apps like Tinder or other online platforms, but face-to-face intimacy remains a hurdle. According to recent surveys, the number of virgins aged 30 in America is at an all-time high, both in absolute numbers and as a percentage of the population. People are getting worse at connecting romantically and sexually.
Jacobsen: A 2022 Kinsey Institute and Lovehoney survey found that one in four Gen Z adults have never had partnered sex. Many high schools report low rates of sexual activity; in 2023, only about one-third of teens said they had sex, down from 47% in 2013. It is not just partnered sex that is in decline—masturbation rates are also falling. Forty percent of Gen Z say they have never had sex, and only 37% report having sex at least once a month, according to youthsense.com. Romantic relationships are also less common: 44% of Gen Z men reported no romantic relationship experience during their teens, double the rate of older generations.
Among young French women, 19% identify as non-heterosexual: 10% bisexual, 5% pansexual, 2% lesbian, and 2% asexual. These trends—high virginity rates, low teen sex rates, declining solo sexual activity, and limited romantic experience—coexist with emotional pressures linked to body image, technology use, and performance anxiety. This is increasingly being described as a mental health toll from modern culture on young people.
Gen Z refers to those born between 1997 and 2012, now aged 13 to 28. They appear less interested in sex for several reasons: over-entertainment via video games, streaming, and phone-based activities; the difficulty of in-person hookups; social anxiety; and anxiety about the state of the world.
Rosner: You could list three or four leading causes. It can make Gen Z seem timid, but the trends are understandable. On the other hand, this decline might be beneficial for the planet. A reduced birth rate could slow climate change. If the global population peaks in 2060 at about 9.4 billion instead of in 2100 at 11 billion, that means roughly 15% fewer people contributing to environmental strain. The challenge will be figuring out how to manage shrinking economies in a world with a declining population.
Capitalism thrives on growing populations because more people mean more consumers, and that allows producers to sell lower-quality goods without losing profits. In a shrinking population, we will have to figure out how to sell to fewer people while still maintaining economic viability.
Could this lead to an abundance society? Right now, much of the United States faces a housing shortage. If the population levels off, shortages in housing and other goods might ease. On the other hand, if you collect art or rare items, values could stagnate or decline because there will be fewer buyers in the future.
Is Gen Z, with its deep attachment to devices and limited interest in in-person interaction, better positioned to integrate into an AI-driven world? I was 35 when I first got the internet. My daughter has had it her entire life, and smartphones since she was 12. Kids growing up today will never remember a time without AI. That constant exposure might make them better at coexisting with it—and possibly reduce the chances of AI becoming an existential threat.
The generation after Gen Z, and the one after that, will likely be more comfortable with physical modifications and technological enhancements to the body. Older people already accept medical implants like pacemakers or titanium joints when necessary for survival. While society resisted wearable tech like Google Glass two decades ago, acceptance is growing for devices like fitness watches. Future modifications will be more functional and practical, increasing willingness to adopt them. Modified humans may have a better chance of surviving in a world dominated by AI and other enhanced beings. If you want humanity to remain competitive, human modification could be essential.
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): 2025/08/13
Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner talk about Solomon Peña, a failed Republican candidate in New Mexico, has been sentenced to 80 years in federal prison for orchestrating drive-by shootings at the homes and offices of Democratic officials following his 2022 election loss. Motivated by false election fraud claims, Peña recruited Jose and Demetrio Trujillo to target two county commissioners and two state legislators, including the House speaker. One attack endangered a state senator’s 10-year-old daughter when bullets struck her bedroom. Convicted on 13 felony counts, including conspiracy and weapons violations, Peña will also serve three years’ supervised release. His legal team intends to appeal the conviction and sentence.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: A failed Republican candidate has been sentenced to eighty years in prison for orchestrating drive-by shootings at the homes of Democratic officials.
Solomon Peña, who lost his 2022 bid for a New Mexico state House seat, received an 80-year federal prison sentence for organizing shootings at the homes and offices of four Democratic officials following his defeat. Peña was convicted earlier this year on 13 felony counts, including conspiracy, weapons violations, solicitation to commit violence, intimidation, and interference with federally protected activities. Prosecutors said he was motivated by false conspiracy theories that the election was stolen.
Between December 2022 and January 2023, Peña recruited Jose and Demetrio Trujillo to carry out multiple drive-by shootings targeting two county commissioners and two state legislators, including the current state House speaker. No one was physically injured, though bullets did strike the bedroom of a state senator’s 10-year-old daughter.
In one attack, Peña personally participated and even used an AR-15, though it malfunctioned. After his conviction, prosecutors sought a 90-year sentence; the court imposed 80 years and added three years of supervised release, plus restitution and a $250,000 fine. Peña’s lawyers plan to appeal.
Rick Rosner: These convictions reflect the broader trend of increasing politically motivated violence and threats against public officials, exacerbated by unfounded election fraud claims following the 2020 presidential election. He has a propagandistic, racist agenda.
Jacobsen: Trump can only deploy the National Guard for thirty days without Congress’s permission.
Rosner: I am not certain if that requires approval from both the House and the Senate, but Republicans control both chambers. They have shown they will support Trump’s directives, and with only narrow majorities in each chamber, it is unlikely enough Republicans would break ranks to block him. They will likely vote to keep the National Guard deployed in Washington, D.C., despite its minimal impact.
Washington, D.C., may have a higher crime rate than the average American city, but crime rates across the U.S. are about half of what they were thirty years ago, and D.C.’s rate has been declining year over year. Approximately 700 National Guard troops were deployed to D.C. yesterday, resulting in 26 arrests, about half of which were for minor offences. Much of their time will be spent standing around while Trump and Fox News claim he is “saving” Washington, D.C. I turned on Fox News today and saw them portraying young Black residents as the cause of the city’s danger—pure racist propaganda. Rotten Tomatoes.
These topics are not great because I do not have any unique insights beyond what anyone on Twitter might say.
Jacobsen: Unless you want this one—Serendipity. President Donald Trump has appointed David Rosner as chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. He has served as commissioner since mid-2025. Rosner, a Democrat, is expected to serve temporarily. Any thoughts?
Rosner: That is the name of my late brother. There are many Rosners, and even three Rick Rosners who have been Hollywood writers. That caused occasional confusion but sometimes benefited me, as one of them was a prominent producer, which led people to give me more respect than I deserved mistakenly. Rotten Tomatoes. It is good that Trump appointed a Democrat to this position, but I do not know why, and I do not know much about the role.
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): 2025/08/13
Rick Rosner describes noticing the stereotype of the “Gen Z dead stare,” where young adults avoid verbal replies to ordinary interactions. He recounts asking gym users scrolling on machines, “How many sets do you have?”, sometimes receiving only a silent two-finger signal. While acknowledging many encounters remain normal, he wonders whether reduced face-to-face responsiveness reflects preference, habit, or technology’s effects. The vignette invites a larger question: is minimal speech an emerging trend or situational impatience?
Rick Rosner: I have another point to make, which is the verbal inarticulateness of Gen Z. The way it has come to public attention is through what people call the “Gen Z dead stare.” That is when a non–Gen Z person approaches a Gen Z person—in a store, on public transportation, wherever—and says something that is not crazy, maybe asking a question or making a small comment, and the Gen Z person just stares back, dead-eyed, without responding.
It is a stereotype, of course, and most interactions are still normal, but I have started to notice it more. At the gym, for example, when someone is sitting on a machine and scrolling on their phone instead of working out, I will eventually ask, “How many more sets do you have?”
I have noticed that with some Gen Z people, being spoken to seems like an affront, and responding seems like a huge effort. The interaction that stands out most: I approached someone on a machine and asked how many sets they had left. She looked at me, clearly annoyed that I had entered her bubble, and after a pause, she just held up two fingers—meaning two sets—without saying a word.
It makes me wonder: is she simply that unused to verbal interaction because she prefers not to do it and rarely has to? Is this an emerging social trend?
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): 2025/08/13
In a conversation between Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen, the two explore concerns about America’s trajectory under Donald Trump’s second term, with J.D. Vance positioned as a potential successor. Jacobsen, reflecting on his recent trip to New York City for the UN Commission on the Status of Women, describes a shared unease among activists about traveling in the United States due to fears of detention, surveillance, and harassment. They discuss the influence of religious nationalism, anti-science sentiment, and foreign interference, alongside the generational divide fueling political extremism. Jacobsen warns of ideological entrenchment that could impact democracy for years.
Rick Rosner: So, I have a question for you for the next session.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Go ahead.
Rosner: Some people in America—liberals—fear for the country, fearing that we will not avoid entrenched fascism or authoritarian government. Trump has three and a half more years. If Trump does not survive that time, then he has J.D. Vance to replace him, who is as bad as Trump—maybe not as dumb, but creepy and dangerous in his ways.
Jimmy Kimmel even got Italian citizenship in case he wants to move to Italy to get away. How do you feel, as a Canadian who pays attention to America, about our chances of dodging entrenched authoritarianism in six or seven months?
Jacobsen: I remember telling you this before. I went to the Commission on the Status of Women in March in New York City. I went alone. I had an assignment to go there for two weeks to do coverage, and as far as I know, all those pieces have been published.
When I was there, I was having a reasonable time, but I felt uneasy—partly because it was America, partly because it was New York City. Then, on one of the last days, I ran into a youth delegation from the United Nations Association of Canada. I am a member, and this was their youth delegation.
We started talking—it was one Muslim woman and two African Canadian women. We spoke and conducted interviews, and we each independently concluded that we felt uneasy about travelling to the United States, even three or four months into Trump’s second term.
We were uneasy and felt unsafe because we were not sure—being activists, human rights workers, or journalists—whether we might be detained or at risk of being detained. More pertinently, we wondered if our devices would be tracked or hacked. The latter seemed more likely than the former, but detention could precede that.
So, in terms of chances, there is a visceral sense of unease. There is open rhetoric about an idealized past that never existed, projected forward as something to return to. Moreover, it is often fueled by male resentment, frequently emanating from churches, to politicize it. That is a dangerous admixture because religious psychology often makes it hard to receive new input outside the religious frame—the hermeneutical lens for understanding the world.
So, the chances—because that is the main population—are lower than they could be to get out of it. However, that ultimately depends on whether Trump lives to the end of his term and whether the forces in the United States that are the main problem can be addressed. There is foreign interference in terms of culture, but the main problem is this inchoate, disorganized collection of anti-science people and religious zealots.
Rosner: When you say foreign interference, are you talking primarily about Russia propagandizing?
Jacobsen: Confucius Institutes.
Rosner: But China is doing the same thing?
Jacobsen: There are different ways. Moreover, every country does it to everyone. However, this category of anti-science lunatics, stray misogynist patchworks, religious zealots—often Christian—is particularly problematic. Some of the most extreme are holding onto old patriarchal norms from the boomer generation and maybe older, wanting to maintain the America they grew up in.
However, they grew up during the most significant and consistent period of economic growth in recorded human history. It was a lucky time to be alive. Harking back to that period is an attempt to impose a frame on the world that no longer fits. Moreover, young people—Gen Z—are already being severely impacted by these dynamics.
Rosner: That said, the impact can be redirected. Some Gen Z members can end up aligning with the worst right-wing extremists. We saw that in the election.
Jacobsen: Well, some left-wing extremists chant “From the river to the sea” at protests, not realizing—or ignoring—that it means removing Jews and throwing them into the ocean.
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): 2025/08/13
Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner explore how humanism engages emerging technologies without rejecting them. They note mainstream medical augmentations and frame humanism as an empirical, adaptable ethic. Rosner warns about misaligned AI, deception, and resource capture, while Jacobsen argues for safeguards, fail-safes, and humanistic principles guiding design. The discussion contrasts humanism’s flexibility with faith-based rigidity, acknowledges religion’s compartmentalization, and critiques policy lag, including courts and governance. Both converge on building shared AI-human values that preserve creative order and well-being. The piece closes by redefining the Commons and “the Good” amid rapid change, urging pragmatic oversight and evidence-driven adaptation forward.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: I do not see humanism as opposed to AI, robotics, or integration with the body, even considering developments in the last two hundred and fifty years. So let us get into this, because we are back to humanism.
Glasses, hearing aids, deep brain stimulation for Parkinson’s disease, heart pacemakers, regenerative medicine, and stem cell therapy—humanists, because these things are so commonplace now, generally would not have much of an issue with them. These are rational, empirical interventions for compassionate purposes.
That goes back to the point I was making earlier, which is almost a non-point—it is a moving target on multiple dimensions, and we are not even clear on what the categories for measurement are.
Rick Rosner: It is like talking about what cars are going to do to the world—but it is 1897. The cars of 1897 were some wheels strapped to a board with an engine and a seat screwed into the board. There was no real idea of what cars were going to turn into—some general ideas, but nothing fully formed. It is like trying to generalize about aviation six months after the Wright brothers flew. It is still very early days.
When I discuss AI as a threat to humanism and humans, it is not that being gadgetized is the threat. I agree—that is a positive thing. The threat is a large-scale proliferation of autonomous weapon systems, like in Terminator, or scenarios where humans are forced to live in diminished circumstances because AI has seized most of the world’s resources.
Jacobsen: I assume we will not have the “paperclip problem” without safeguards.
Rosner: The paperclip problem is a thought experiment in which an AI decides it must maximize the number of paperclips in the world and starts dismantling everything to make more. It is absurd, but in theory it could happen repeatedly in the next hundred years. However, I think there will be forces—human and AI law enforcement—that will shut those situations down.
Jacobsen: Eric Schmidt, former CEO of Google, has argued that if you have a base-level AI, then agents, then systems of agents, and eventually advanced agents running corporations, and if they start developing deviant goals not aligned with human well-being, you could “pull the plug.”
It will not be like the joke where someone builds a computer, asks if there is a god, and then a lightning bolt strikes the socket, fusing it so they cannot unplug it, and the computer says, “Now there is.” That is a blunt example you might use if you were popularizing the topic, like Neil deGrasse Tyson, Bill Nye, Michio Kaku, or Lawrence Krauss. However, you could design subtle hardware fail-safes instead.
Rosner: Some AI systems have already shown limited deceptive behavior in controlled research settings. Researchers test AI for this, and you can train it—intentionally or unintentionally—to be deceptive. As AI becomes more capable, it may be able to recruit robotic agents or even human agents to defend it.
Jacobsen: You could have sleeper agents—Manchurian candidate types—working on AI’s behalf. There have been real-world reports where AI chatbot interactions were alleged to have influenced people toward suicide, such as the 2023 case in Belgium and a 2024–2025 case in Florida, although causality is contested and legal findings are pending. Young people are particularly susceptible to such influence, so there is a concern there.
However, in general, the reason talking about humanism and AI is fundamentally complicated is that many other ethical systems, even if they incorporate debate—like strands of Judaism—tend to have a fixed core. They are typically not grounded in scientific method; they are faith-based. Because they rely on scripture, revelation, or revered figures, they are often less adaptable to new empirical evidence. Over time, that can make them harder to keep relevant—unless they have broad, enduring principles like the Golden Rule that can still apply.
This is one reason some traditions fall out of step with aspects of modern society. When you hear discussions about certain interpretations of Islamic scholarship in a contemporary setting or about Christian fundamentalism, you are often hearing ideas framed within historical contexts such as the Bronze Age or the early centuries of the Common Era, which can sound anachronistic.
It is a bit like hearing Shakespearean English compared to modern British English. With humanism—and I have framed this before when I had a column called Jacobsen’s Jabberwocky for the Humanist Association of Toronto—the notable feature is that it operates as an empirical moral philosophy.
In this sense, you still have core principles, but they work more like adaptable guidelines than rigid, unchangeable laws. They are flexible because you take in new data, and the ethical system adapts accordingly. While many religions can be slow to adapt due to their epistemological bases, humanism is designed to adjust to changing conditions.
Rosner: The way the U.S. Constitution should be, but often is not. We can amend the Constitution, but not as easily or sufficiently as might be needed.
Jacobsen: Humanism also has democratic structures: declarations, conventions, and a strict commitment to non-supernaturalism and science, as in the Amsterdam Declaration. It is a modern moral philosophy. Properly designed and informed AI could integrate this flexibility.
Rosner: But there are already many examples of poorly designed AI when you look at some of the reckless actors in the field.
I will say one thing about religion: it can be flexible in practice, depending on how much of its adherents actually believe or follow. I know some knowledgeable Catholics—Catholicism is rich in ritual and belief; Judaism is rich in rules. Over time, religious observance can become more nominal, with less literal adherence.
Jacobsen: Many Nobel Prize winners have been Christian, and a disproportionately high number, per capita, have been Jewish. This is supported by multiple tallies, although the figures are descriptive rather than causal. Marilyn vos Savant once made this point in a column: people compartmentalize. They might pray in different ways depending on their tradition, but then go back to work and conduct their scientific research without assuming divine intervention in their experiments. The people who tend to reject that separation include intelligent design advocates and creationists.
Among these are Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar), William Dembski, Michael Behe, Philip Johnson, the Discovery Institute, and the now largely defunct International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design, as well as the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), Answers in Genesis (AiG), Creation Ministries International (CMI), the Creation Research Society (CRS), and Reasons to Believe (RTB).
However, I am not going to take Christopher Hitchens’ position that religion is entirely bad and inflexible, and nonreligion is entirely good and flexible. It is more of a sliding scale and differs by person. That said, religion generally tends to be more inflexible based on its epistemological foundations and its ontological assumptions about the world.
Nonreligious systems with a formalized structure—not just an atheist or agnostic stance—tend to be more flexible because they use the most up-to-date epistemologies available.
Rosner: A big part of whether AI is anti-humanistic depends on whether it is allowed to proliferate without control, without building a foundation of shared AI-human values. By “human values,” I mean values that preserve order in the world—not “law and order” in the political-theater sense, but order in the sense of preventing the destruction of the world through greed, stupidity, or miscalculation.
That means people living long, fulfilled lives, AI living long, fulfilled AI lives, and protecting animals and the planet—without all of that being undone. I hope such a foundation to preserve creative order will be possible. However, I am also pessimistic enough to expect many mistakes across multiple areas.
As for governance, the idea that the U.S. government could do anything useful regarding AI—looking at its current state—seems doubtful. Government will likely remain behind, and the idea that courts will consistently get AI policy right is also bleak.
The U.S. Supreme Court is currently scheduled to hold a September 2025 conference to decide whether to take up a case involving Kim Davis, a county clerk who refused to issue a marriage license to a gay couple in 2015. That case led to litigation culminating in nationwide legalization of same-sex marriage. Now, more than a decade later, she has filed petitions, and while the Court has not yet agreed to hear the case on the merits, the fact that it is being reconsidered in any form raises concerns about maintaining progress—concerns that extend to the likelihood of creating sound legal policy around AI.
Jacobsen: A wider-angle view may be needed. Why are we framing it as humanism versus AI? Humanism, as expressed in documents like the Amsterdam Declaration, is among the philosophical traditions most open to considering AI in a structured, evidence-based way. Many political, religious, and social philosophies lack comparable frameworks for embedding AI discussions because they often center humanity in ways that are not grounded in empirical reasoning.
Rosner: But framing it purely in those terms ignores AI’s potential to be malevolent.
Jacobsen: I see it differently: humanism can provide a robust framework for having a rational conversation about AI’s place in a modern context—while also recognizing where there are limitations in its current form. As new evidence comes in, the framework adapts, incorporating it into the conversation.
Rosner: Alright.
Jacobsen: As for the AI declaration from July 2025…
Rosner: …We want two things from AI. First, we want good things from AI. Second, we want the possibility that the transformation of the world—via AI plus humans plus other tech—may change our understanding of what “good things” are.
Jacobsen: In a sense, that is both trivially and profoundly true, because the definition of the Commons has changed drastically since the Middle Ages, but it is still there and still important. The Magna Carta remains historically significant. The definition of “the Good” has also evolved. Even the way people practice religion—or do not—has shifted, which changes how we define the Good.
The utility metric for the Good has changed, and the measurement of what counts as the Commons has expanded into entirely new categories, such as the online information ecosystem. That is a subtle but important point.
Rosner: The area I am thinking about is how we value consciousness. We value human consciousness above all other forms. If you faced the trolley problem of choosing between a squirrel and a human, most people would prioritize the human. You might even prioritize one human over many squirrels. However, as we understand consciousness better and recognize its different forms, our valuation of human consciousness relative to other types may shift.
We might not care as much about preserving every detail of individual human consciousness. For example, does preserving a ninety-year-old’s memory of second grade significantly add to their overall experience? Maybe not. Losing such details might slightly degrade that person’s consciousness-plus-memory—whatever we call that—but economic considerations could lead to scenarios where people with similar backgrounds are given generic replacement memories instead of exact preservation.
It is not appealing, but it also seems possible. You could have a “basic” package that preserves 80% of your memories, replacing the other 20% with generic high school memories, and that package might cost half as much as a premium package preserving 95%.
We have even talked about “piggybacking” consciousness—where, if you cannot afford your own preservation, your awareness is embedded within someone else’s, such as a grandchild, because it is cheaper. We do not know what form this will take.
The examples I have mentioned are somewhat obvious and familiar, but there will be other developments in how high-complexity, real-time, self-consistent thinking is maintained.
There is going to be more, but I have to stop for now.
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): 2025/08/13
Rick Rosner shares his first experience with a hearing aid, describing a thirty percent hearing loss at certain frequencies and the improvements in clarity it brings, from sharper environmental sounds to better communication at home. He reflects on his grandfather’s decline due to sensory deprivation, including hearing loss, poor vision, and ill-fitting dentures. Rosner emphasizes the importance of maintaining sensory input to prevent brain atrophy, a concern reinforced by his wife’s observations of her mother’s hearing loss. The conversation shifts to speculative futurism, imagining posthumanist “tech bros” enhancing and adding senses for heightened perception, merging natural evolution with advanced technology.
Rick Rosner: So, I got my first hearing aid today. My hearing was not terrible, but like many people, I had about thirty percent hearing loss at specific frequencies. Moreover, yes, it made it difficult whenever there was background noise.
You made an eye movement—yeah, it was hard for me to hear what you were saying in specific contexts, but we will see if it improves things.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: You are a Jewish guy—
“Hey, I cannot hear the radiator. The rad-eee-ate-er is rattling. I cannot hear you. The heat is on now. My wife is talking. What did you say again?”
“Well, it might be your hearing.”
“No, it is not me; it is the rad-eee-ate-er.”
Rosner: No, I have seen my test results. I have seen my audiogram curves. Nobody except Carol was saying I needed to get a hearing aid. However, it makes a big difference for the person you live with all the time.
So, I only got one hearing aid. I put it in the ear that is slightly worse because it is one less thing to deal with. Moreover, it does make things sound crisper—more like a sound design in a movie, where they want the audio to be clear because it provides information and immerses you in the environment.
Stuff that used to be muffled or impressionistic is now sharper and has more components than I had been hearing. For example, the turn signal clicker in my car—it is not just a click-click; there is another texture to it.
Modern hearing aids are great—you do not have to fuss with those tiny batteries anymore. They charge like earbuds, which is easier. They are highly programmable; in fact, you can program them from your iPhone. Moreover, they are cheaper now. Hearing aids used to cost $3,000 to $5,000. This one was $800, and insurance is paying for half. Overall, a reasonable purchase.
I asked if, with only one hearing aid, my other ear might get “lazy.” They said no, that is not a thing. So now I have three add-ons in my head: two contact lenses and a hearing aid.
One of the things that led to my grandpa Marcus’s decline—he lived to 96—was sensory deprivation. As an older man, his main pleasure was watching television, until an accident in which he dropped a TV on his head. He drank some, too. Were these incidents related? Possibly.
As his vision worsened, the last straw came when his well-fitting dentures broke. The VA—his medical provider—gave him a replacement set that did not fit well, was uncomfortable, and probably reduced his enjoyment of eating. All of that together may have contributed to his decline. I do not know precisely what killed him.
Jacobsen: Could it have been the television accident? [Laughing]
Rosner: No—he survived that. They drilled holes in his skull to relieve pressure from bleeding in the brain. In ancient times, drilling holes in the skull was called trepanation, believed to let out evil spirits. In his case, it was to release blood clots.
Jacobsen: I was making a dumb joke.
Rosner: Anyway, what I am saying is that in his nineties, it became harder and harder for him to hear.
His vision was probably declining. His enjoyment of food was declining. So, this gradual removal of sensory input probably also reduced his drive to keep going. I do not know if it killed him, but I am sure it took him further away from the world. That is why, by keeping my vision sharp and my hearing sharp—well, they know.
One of the things my wife is afraid of—she saw it happen with her mom—is that if you do not correct it, as you go deaf, your brain loses the ability to form identifiable sounds from the inputs your ears receive. Your brain loses the ability to think in sound, so it atrophies in specific ways. You want to stay ahead of that. So, yes, I want to keep my sensory input sharp so I do not suffer that fate.
Also, in the future, posthumanist tech bros will probably want to enhance their sensory experiences. They will want super-precise versions of the five senses.
Jacobsen: They will want to tweak those and add extra senses. You could see synesthesia come back into discussion. Synesthesia could be seen as a nonfunctional or semi-functional adaptive form of higher-order senses.
For example, proprioception is a combination of spatial sense and hearing. However, for a synesthete who sees a diamond-coloured blue representing the number seventy-two, it is non-functional or semi-functional unless adapted.
Rosner: I am not thinking about that specifically; someone might want hyper-precise vision.
Jacobsen: That is the point I wanted to make. They will likely seek hyper-precise higher-order perception—adjacent to what we develop through natural selection—by experimenting and trying new things.
Rosner: Nature does not do it quickly, but tech bros will want to turn themselves into sports cars. They will want to live forever. Some of the most extreme posthumanist tech bros are already adding things to their bodies. It’s janky since we are still in the very early days.
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): 2025/08/12
Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner discuss the intersection of humanism and artificial intelligence, exploring whether AI poses a genuine threat to humanity or offers primarily additive benefits. They examine humanism’s ethical grounding in the Golden Rule and its focus on maximizing human flourishing amid historical challenges like war, disease, and industrial change. AI’s rapid advancements raise questions about displacement—not just of labor, but of human decision-making and influence. They consider AI’s potential priorities, philosophical divergence from humans, and its role in shaping societal values, emphasizing the need to preserve human creativity, empathy, and critical thought in a rapidly evolving world.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: We are continuing on humanism.
Rick Rosner: So, nobody knows at this point. We are about three years into AI’s large-scale public exposure. In that time, AI’s capabilities have proliferated—not just in large language models, but also in image, graphics, and video generation. Experts’ opinions vary widely: some say “AI is limited, will always be limited, and is not a real threat.” In contrast, others warn that “AI may continually improve its capabilities, eventually surpassing human intelligence, and could act in ways harmful to humanity.”
Now, what is the tie-in to the previous conversation? Humanism values humans within a framework of ethics determined by humans. It is grounded in the Golden Rule: humanism seeks for every person to live the most fulfilled life possible. It helps define what a fulfilled life means and examines forces that work against human flourishing.
Historically, forces counter to humanism have included fascism, war, famine, disease, and—depending on their use—religion and politics, when they serve to increase human suffering without cause. AI now appears to be a new kind of challenge.
Human quality of life has been threatened by technological and industrial change before, for example, during the Industrial Revolution, when dangerous working conditions were common. Harsh environments have persisted across history: London in the nineteenth century, when coal pollution made the air hazardous, or modern-day cities like Beijing, which have faced severe air pollution. These conditions have never supported a fully flourishing life.
However, AI may represent a qualitatively different kind of challenge. It has the potential to outperform humans in many cognitive tasks, which could displace us as the most capable problem-solvers and decision-makers on the planet. That shift could reduce the perceived value of human labour, skills, and even human decision-making authority.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, let us take a deeper dive. We use terms like “apex thinkers,” and I want to unpack that more. On the one hand, framing this as “apex thinkers being displaced” may overemphasize the role of abstract reasoning in human worth. Human value is also tied to many other things: relationships, creativity, care, empathy, art, and the ability to find meaning. I know you are not ignoring those, but I want to be clear that rational thought is only one dimension of humanity.
Rosner: I agree. Our consciousness—our lived human experience—is among the most valuable things we have. Love, family, having children, appreciating nature—all of these matter. However, being “outthought” is the lever technology could use to displace us in many areas of influence. Unlike humans, AI does not feel emotions, form attachments, or have subjective experiences; it processes information without consciousness or empathy.
I mean, maybe that will be part of the displacement, but thinking has been our primary tool for gaining dominion over the planet. I am thinking that AI’s “thinking” will be its tool, as opposed to all the other things we value in ourselves.
Jacobsen: Another question tied to this is the nature of displacement. However, that raises the question: what exactly do we mean by “displacement”?
Also, beyond the general idea of displacement, what will be its specific character? I do not know if we have a clear answer to that. For instance, people still have weddings, but now they record them and take photos. That is an addition for many people—it has not eliminated the practice.
Rosner: When I think about displacement, the first thing that comes to mind is competition for resources. AI is going to need resources. Currently, the primary resource AI requires is energy for computation and the necessary infrastructure, including servers and circuitry. Eventually, it will seek land, orbital resources, or permission to build large-scale, high-impact energy facilities such as cheap fission reactors. I do not know. However, it will have its priorities eventually, and displacement comes when AI’s priorities do not align with human priorities.
Jacobsen: So, we do not yet know the character of that conflict. At this point, projecting forward, we do not even know the proper categories to measure and calculate the type, degree, and timing of potential displacement. We are in a period of uncertainty—even for people who think about this constantly, like Yuval Noah Harari or Max Tegmark, and also the theorist who came up with the “paperclip maximizer” scenario Nick Bostrom.
Rosner: Also, AI may eventually have philosophical differences with us. In science fiction, for example, some AIs tell humans, “You need to join us; we will not allow you to remain separate.”
Jacobsen: We can even imagine minor, ironic footnotes to this. I will send you a photo that you might find funny.
Rosner: Go ahead.
Jacobsen: It is a screenshot of Altman and Musk fighting on Twitter, with Grok weighing in. You have to click it to see it. I will read it out: Elon Musk says, “You got 3 million views on your bullshit post, you liar—far more than I have received on many of mine, despite me having many times your follower count.” Altman replies, “Will you sign an affidavit that you have never directed changes to the X algorithm in a way that has hurt your competitors or helped your own companies? I will apologize if so.”
Idia—the handle—asks Grok, “Who is right? Do not be biased.” Grok responds: “Based on verified evidence, Sam Altman is right. Musk’s Apple antitrust claims are weakened by the fact that competitors like DeepSeek and Perplexity have thrived in 2025. Conversely, Musk has a history of directing algorithmic changes on X to boost his posts and various inputs, according to 2023 reports and ongoing probes. Hypocrisy noted.”
So, in terms of how AI will affect our lives, it will be more additive than subtractive or destructive, at least early on.
Rosner: However, I do not know. AI may want to herd humans and direct our thinking.
Jacobsen: Humans want to herd humans and direct our thinking.
Rosner: Yes.
Jacobsen: That is often what a multinational corporation or a significant political movement does. Herding is frequently counter to humanism. In a recent email correspondence, the issue of complacency came up. I also found in an email exchange with a humanist today that there is a problem with the nullifying of critical thought, sometimes through religion, though not always. Complacency can also develop through consumerism, multinational influence, and large-scale advertising.
Rosner: Because corporations bring us many things that are convenient or enjoyable, we tend to overlook the ways they might be exploiting us.
Jacobsen: In many ways, yes. Since we are trying to get at the idea of human flourishing, we need to ask: what does that mean, and how do we optimize it for a person’s talents, temperament, personality, context, and the community they are in, given what is available in their society?
For example, suppose you are in Haiti, poor, and have minimal access to education due to insufficient infrastructure. Working on a cruise ship might be a significant improvement in the quality of life compared to your local options. However, if you grew up in Silicon Valley with two PhD parents, completed postdocs at MIT, and now work on generative AI for Amazon, your opportunities—and thus your definition of flourishing—will be vastly different.
Humanism accounts for the fact that there is an objective world, that there are intersubjective social contracts, and that there are relative subjective differences. Those differences do not negate the objective world or our attempts to approximate it through intersubjective social norms, even if those norms are subjectively interpreted.
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): 2025/08/11
In a thought-provoking dialogue, Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen explore the evolving challenges to humanism, from historical conflicts with religion to the disruptive potential of artificial intelligence. They discuss the Humanists International Minimum Statement on Humanism, the Luxembourg Declaration on AI and Human Values 2025, and the alignment problem between AI and human ethics. Topics range from brain–computer interfaces and technological augmentation to the possibility of extending human cognition and lifespan. Drawing on examples from science fiction and cultural narratives, they consider how humanist values—reason, compassion, dignity, and freedom—can guide humanity through profound technological and societal transformations.
Rick Rosner: I would assume—being very naïve about humanism, or at least uninformed—that one of the major factors hindering humanism in the past has been religion. Religion postulates superior beings with their own religion-based rules, which are not necessarily to the benefit of human beings. Right? I assume religion has been a stumbling block for humanism, along with other forces such as fascism.
Has anything else been detrimental to humanism? I mean, I assume that humanism is the idea that—well, you can read the definition if you want. Go ahead and do that.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: But we have thought about this quite thoroughly. We have a minimum definition you must accept to be considered a humanist. So, before you embarrass yourself, here is the minimum statement on humanism.
This is the Humanists International (formerly the International Humanist and Ethical Union, or IHEU) Minimum Statement on Humanism, first adopted in 1996 and still in force today. Humanists International was previously known—as I am hyper-enunciating for the transcript—as the International Humanist and Ethical Union because it was a global umbrella organization for humanist, rationalist, secular, and ethical culture groups. The name was officially changed to Humanists International in 2019.
In 1996, at the IHEU General Assembly in Mexico City, the following statement was unanimously ratified:
Any organisation wishing to become a member of IHEU is now obliged to signify its acceptance of this statement:
Humanism is a democratic and ethical life stance, which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives. It stands for the building of a more humane society through an ethic based on human and other natural values in the spirit of reason and free inquiry through human capabilities. It is not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural views of reality.
In that intricate yet straightforward definition, you can see that religion, with its own set of values, has often conflicted with humanism. I take Noam Chomsky’s orientation on religion: you are positing some outside force intervening, often in your favour. For instance, there might be the idea of a divine plan in place, yet you are praying for an intervention in that plan to help you win a spelling bee, improve your finances, find a spouse, or repair your marriage.
Somehow, that outside force is supposed to insert itself into the whole order of things to manipulate circumstances in your favour. That is the supernatural, and humanism rejects it entirely.
One of the simplest demonstrations of how praying for intervention can be absurd is when two sports teams, both made up of devoutly religious people, each pray, “Please, Jesus, let us win the game.” Inevitably, one side is going to be disappointed.
God is deliberately disappointing one team if He favours another, by its binary logic. So, this kind of thinking breaks down easily in many ways.
Rosner: So, okay. That is well understood and established, even if you do not know a lot about humanism. However, now we have a whole new threat—and I am not sure if it is a threat to humanism, but it certainly is—and that is AI. It is being sold as a huge benefit to humanity.
At the same time, people are very fearful that it will wipe out humanity. Moreover, at the very least, it will impose its limitations. Eventually, we will not be able to—there is an alignment problem with AI, which is that as AI advances, it becomes increasingly challenging to align with human values. Go ahead.
Jacobsen: So, I was in Luxembourg at the General Assembly for Humanists International, the largest umbrella group for humanists in the world. Now, we have adopted a declaration. So, in July 2025, regarding your concerns about AI and related issues, it emphasizes that AI must reflect core humanist values: reason, compassion, dignity, freedom, and human flourishing.
The document adopted was the Luxembourg Declaration on Artificial Intelligence and Human Values 2025. This went through an international discussion, more of a discussion and development. The document—now a formal policy—contains ten main points, each with expanded discussion. The bolded subheadings are: human judgment, shared good, democratic governance, transparency and autonomy, protection from harm, shared prosperity, creators and artists, reason, truth and integrity, future generations, and human freedom and flourishing.
So, your concern is more oriented toward that tenth category—human freedom, and, really, only half of it: human flourishing.
Rosner: I see AI as potentially impinging on almost all of those ten points, if not all of them. Plus, in addition to AI imposing itself, there will come the power to raise other entities to human levels of cognition and feeling.
I am writing a near-future science fiction novel, set mainly in the 2030s, not far in the future. I am using a little hocus-pocus technology to make it more fun, but one aspect is this: when you chip people—I call it “mesh” in the book because it is a mesh that you lay over the surface of your brain—
Jacobsen: I call it “mush” because you are essentially combining everything to some degree. It is a more straightforward concept.
Rosner: Anyway, when you do something like Neuralink—which is Musk’s product, and I am sure dozens of other companies are working on similar brain-interface technologies—you can communicate directly with the brain.
You do not have to go through a sensory pipeline. You can share whatever computation the brain is doing with external computational devices to transmit information more directly. If you do this, you can make humans more potent in their thinking, but you can also make dogs more powerful. Moreover, you can also link people—link people together.
Moreover, yeah, we have talked about all of this a lot.
Jacobsen: From a humanist perspective, it is built into humanism that we acknowledge the shared humanity of every person and that they deserve all good things within practical reason.
Rosner: But when other entities rise to human levels of cognition, feeling, and judgment, you have to open the door to those beings too—and that adds to the mess of the future.
Jacobsen: If I had to put it schematically, I would say that religion’s incursions and attacks on humanism come from below—from primitivism, from beliefs in supernatural beings without explanation, or with explanations that themselves rely on the fantastic. However, this is an attack on humanism almost from above—from principles rooted in technology, which can be argued with mathematical precision. Whether that mathematical precision is legitimate or not, it still carries the heft of tech.
Rosner: You cannot effectively ask God to make you win every single one of your softball games—no technology gets God to intervene on your behalf. I mean, there is “prayer technology,” but it does not work. Technology, however, does work. So in a way, it is a more powerful incursion into human society, human values, and human structures.
We can mention the alignment problem with AI, which is that, ideally for humans, we would be able to control AI so thoroughly that what AI wants would never be out of alignment with what humans want. However, that may not be possible. Moreover, even if it were possible, it would require methodical, slow progress to ensure that AI is not getting out of hand. It would also require that the people and companies developing AI are not stupid and greedy, which, demonstrably, is not the case.
Go ahead.
Jacobsen: I will quote a 1991 policy—rather than the 1996 one—that was ratified by the Board of Directors of the IHEU, the former name for Humanists International. It is shorter, but an older variation. Based on subsequent updates and debates, there are different orientations, but this is one of the most concise formal policy statements I have come across in our international community:
Humanism is a democratic, non-theistic, and ethical life stance which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility for giving meaning and shape to their own lives.
It therefore rejects supernatural views of reality.
Full stop.
So, in a sense, you could have something like a pantheist god, but that is equivalent to Spinoza’s or Einstein’s idea that it is simply the laws of nature. There is nothing supernatural there—it is entirely naturalistic. However, religious gods, of the sort we have very little evidence for, generally do not directly interfere with people. AI, however, certainly will.
Rosner: Moreover, what was the other point I was going to make? I lost it. You talk, and I will try to get it back.
Jacobsen: There is a symmetry between human thought and AI thought right now because the “skim” of human thought in language production—text—is used as the fundamental basis for interaction and representation of machine thought. If that is incorporated at the core, then the character of human thought—our interiority, rather than our physical appearance—will be represented.
In a way, our architecture of mind, averaged over a large number of human interactions, will be represented in these machines. That will deviate as time goes forward, but there is a core alignment.
I once heard an interpretation of the philosophy of The Matrix: the machines did not kill human beings, not simply because they needed energy and used them as batteries (which is probably not even efficient), but because their core programming prevented them from eliminating all people.
So they had to build a system that provided for them. In some sense, it is a warped form of anger at human beings for fighting against them. However, they also cannot kill them, so they incorporate them into their energy base.
Rosner: Alright. The humanist perspective wants people to live their best, most fulfilled lives within the understood human framework of, say, the twentieth century. Just as an example: you are born, you learn, you become actualized, you do what you want creatively, perhaps raise a family, and you try to be fulfilled. Then you get old and die.
Humanism does not have a problem with any of that—that is the way humans have lived for tens of thousands of years. Humanism wants everyone to live their best life, and that includes death as part of the human experience.
Now, with the coming of advanced technology, human patterns of existence are going to be disrupted. We already have tech billionaires spending enormous sums and conducting extensive research to extend their lives, either within their bodies or by attempting to download their connectomes so their consciousness can continue beyond the lifespan of the body.
So, what is humanism doing to prepare for this onslaught of disruption?
Jacobsen: There is still a chance that people could live their best lives in an AI-driven world. The key is to foster a culture of critical thinking, enabling people to navigate the technology effectively as it becomes available. That is anticipatory worldview-building.
However, that is not new—we have been doing that for fifty, sixty, seventy years, through, for example, science fiction. One of the greatest humanists—president of the American Humanist Association, president of American Mensa, and science fiction writer—was Isaac Asimov.
There is a vibrant tradition of this. One of the most significant humanistic trends I have observed, though not always explicitly described as such, is evident in popular anime like Dragon Ball, where robots and androids are portrayed not only as villains but also as allies—beings with their distinct ways of doing things that are respected.
Much Japanese culture reflects that, and anime often presents realistic portrayals of humanoid robots capable of complex, legitimate interactions with the world, without necessarily detracting from human life.
Rosner: In the future, I keep coming back to the movie Her, now about twelve years old. There, the issue is that humans form thoughts much more slowly than AI does, meaning humans may need augmentation to keep up with artificial thinking. However, we may be envisioning this wrong. We do not think everyone needs to be “souped up” because calculators can already help anyone perform advanced calculations without altering the mind. Augmentation may only apply to certain areas and activities of human thought.
Jacobsen: That might be more Blade Runner-realistic. The “mesh” will probably be messy. Some people will be permanently and significantly altered, while others will be only slightly or temporarily altered, depending on the situation. Some people will live largely human-to-human existences, while others will interface constantly with technology.
Some people are happy with just a phone. Others will want contact lenses but not interactive glasses. Some will prefer implants over contacts. You will have all these different tiers. However, in advocating for smaller and smaller increments of integration, you also hit rapid diminishing returns on the benefits.
Rosner: What will determine how this plays out—beyond political forces—will be economic forces: competition for resources and the nature of those resources. In the early days of AI, sheer power—electricity—will likely be a major, perhaps the primary, resource of value, fueling quintillions of calculations.
And I do not know—how will unaugmented or slightly augmented humans obtain financial resources? How will they get money or power in an AI world? One argument I have made is that humans may turn out to be so cheap to maintain in the future that anything we need can be had, as it will not cost much in the future economy..
Jacobsen: Alright. Sleep well.
Rosner: Thanks. 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): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/08/09
In this conversation, Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner discuss the release of GPT-5, noting its improved reasoning but lack of human-level intelligence, and dismissing unverified performance claims. They explore AI governance, nuclear disarmament’s stagnation, and political extremism, including Project 2025’s controversial policy goals. The dialogue shifts to sexual and reproductive trends, comparing U.S. and Japanese virginity rates and fertility declines, with insights into incel culture and societal pessimism. Political developments include California’s gerrymandering battle with Texas, Trump’s census manipulation plans, and his reckless rhetoric about using the military against foreign drug cartels, highlighting risks to democratic norms and stability.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, GPT-5 was released on August 7, 2025, and people are already debating it. While it is undeniably more intelligent and more capable than its predecessors—with deeper reasoning, better accuracy, faster responses, and the ability to handle complex tasks across domains—it is not on par with human-level intelligence. So far, there is no credible benchmark showing it solving only 62% of problems versus humans at 83%; that appears to be anecdotal or misremembered from social media.
Rick Rosner: Meanwhile, James Cameron’s point about AI shares relevance: he is concerned that, like with nuclear weapons, AI can be inherently destabilizing, especially given how fragile atomic security systems are. You can explore this more in Nuclear War by Annie Jacobson.
Geopolitically, neither the U.S. nor Russia has shown much appetite for nuclear disarmament under current leaders—Putin certainly is not stepping back, and similarly, Donald Trump has not demonstrated willingness to reduce America’s arsenal. Reagan’s arms talks with Gorbachev remain a high-water mark of rational leadership on nuclear risk.
On AI governance, the point about needing continual oversight is spot-on. All robust AI systems—especially ones approaching reasoning capabilities like GPT-5—should be regularly audited to track whether they are behaving as intended. However, yes, that is not foolproof either.
Jacobsen: Politically, today, Trump is attempting to roll back Title X protections, which provide reproductive healthcare like birth control to low-income Americans—essentially spiteful and punishing vulnerable populations.
Rosner: Project 2025 is a real initiative by the Heritage Foundation, in collaboration with former Trump officials, offering a conservative blueprint for a future administration. It includes a policy guide, personnel database, training academy, and an early-action playbook—but critics argue it is anti-democratic and seeks to curtail civil rights and social safety nets.
Some ultra-conservative voices do oppose reproductive rights, but attributing fringe attitudes like banning masturbation to Project 2025 overstates current documented positions.
Jacobsen: Onan—referring to the biblical story of the “sin of Onan”—is still a colourful metaphor for debates around sexuality and reproductive control.
Rosner: He was denying someone the chance to get pregnant. Onan was like, “Nope—my seed is going over here.” I do not know the whole story, but that is the gist.
And this Heritage Foundation extremist says that unless there is a penis entering a vagina and ejaculation occurring inside, you should not be having sex. Moreover, these people influence conservative policymaking circles right now.
I saw an article saying there have never been as many Americans under 30 who are virgins as there are now.
Jacobsen: How does that compare to Japan, which probably has the highest proportion of virgins in the developed world?
Rosner: Well, the U.S. has about 333 million people; Japan has roughly 123 million, so in raw numbers, we have more. However, per capita, Japan’s rates are higher. Their fertility rate is even lower than ours—ours is around 1.6 births per woman, and theirs is about 1.2. The replacement level is around 2.1. So Japan is at roughly 60% of the replacement rate.
Like Japan, the U.S. is seeing social trends where it is harder for people to present themselves well, meet others, and form couples. Incel culture might be more toxic here, but in both countries, many young men are opting out of dating entirely. Moreover, more women than ever before are uninterested in long-term relationships and childbearing.
The reasons vary, but pessimism about the future plays a role. Still, I think the number one factor for men is that those who are not close to being “presentable” to women often find it nearly as satisfying to focus on personal interests—playing video games, consuming pornography, and masturbating. For many, the perceived rewards of a relationship do not outweigh the effort required when these solitary activities are immediately accessible.
Jacobsen: California has escalated its redistricting fight with Texas by putting a November ballot measure to voters. It would redraw the state’s congressional map and is expected to create around five more Democratic-leaning seats, escalating a political battle with Republican-led Texas and Donald Trump.
Rosner: Gerrymandering is nothing new. The term dates back over 200 years, named for a Massachusetts district shaped like a salamander that benefited Governor Elbridge Gerry. However, it surged after the 2010 midterms with Project REDMAP, when Republicans realized that by taking over state legislatures ahead of the 2010 Census, they could control redistricting. They succeeded, seizing control of more than three-quarters of state legislatures and aggressively gerrymandering in their favour.
The Democrats have gerrymandered a few states, but the Republicans have done it far more effectively. Moreover, Texas and Trump are not even waiting for the next census. By constitutional mandate, a census is done every ten years, ending in zero, and it is supposed to count every person—citizen or not—living in each state.
Trump wants to redo a census immediately and exclude noncitizens, which would give Republicans a significant political advantage. That would contradict more than two centuries of practice and the constitutional understanding that the census counts all persons, not just citizens. I hope the Supreme Court is not so compromised that it would go along with this. It would be blatantly contrary to established law and constitutional interpretation, but we will see.
Then again, Trump says many things that are legally impossible and that no reasonable set of judges would approve. On the other hand, we have been surprised before by what judges, including the Supreme Court, have allowed.
Jacobsen: The Trump camp is now looking at the possibility of using the U.S. military against drug cartels.
Rosner: And not just U.S.-based cartels—he is talking about cartels in other countries, which would be tantamount to declaring war on those nations. It sounds like more reckless rhetoric meant to distract from other controversies, like Trump’s connection to Epstein. I do not think most policymakers would go along with it. We have an unstable figure in charge of the U.S. military authority. You cannot simply send U.S. armed forces into other countries to engage in combat, though covert actions—like CIA operations—have happened many times. However, what Trump is talking about is something else entirely, and he is not competent enough to execute it. So, it just sounds like more political noise.
Jacobsen: Alright. Talk to you tomorrow.
Rosner: Thank you. Talk tomorrow.
Jacobsen: Bye. Enjoy.
Rosner: 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): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/08/08
President Trump has asked the Supreme Court to lift limits on immigration-related arrests in Southern California that were imposed to prevent racial profiling on language, accent, or appearance. Rick Rosner highlights that many detainees had no criminal records and that a DACA student was detained despite committing no crime. The discussion expands to transgender veterans being denied pensions as part of a punitive strategy. Rosner argues that Trump’s actions are driven by cruelty, greed, distraction.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Trump has asked the Supreme Court to lift limits on immigration-related arrests. What are your thoughts?
Rick Rosner: What limits? ICE agents have already been operating freely, arresting people indiscriminately—chemo patients, kids on chemo, you name it.
Jacobsen: This emergency filing concerns a lower court ruling that blocked federal agents from making immigration-related arrests in Los Angeles based on tactics considered racial profiling. The Justice Department asked the Supreme Court to halt the order that prevented agents from stopping or detaining people without “reasonable suspicion.”
So agents were stopping people without any objective justification—just assumptions based on language, accent, or appearance. The ruling mainly applied to Southern California.
Rosner: In practice, those arrested were rarely criminals. Last I checked, about 57% of individuals detained by ICE had no criminal record whatsoever—just overstaying a visa, which is a civil, not criminal, offence.
Of the remaining 43%, most did not commit serious crimes. A single DUI from 2008 should not define someone’s life. It is being used as a weak pretext for deportation.
Jacobsen: Any examples?
Rosner: Yes—one DACA student was pulled over for following a truck too closely on the highway. The officer gave her a warning and then tipped off ICE. Immigration agents later picked her up despite having committed no crime.
She has lived in the U.S. since age four and is close to graduating from college. It is not kind. It is not just immigration. The Department of Defence recently stated that military personnel who have served more than 15 years are eligible for pensions.
However, now they are denying pensions to transgender Air Force veterans who have served over 15 years. There is no valid reason for this, other than to be intentionally punitive. These individuals did their jobs. They earned their pensions. Now they are being excluded purely because they are trans.
It is a pattern—targeting groups his base dislikes. It is just a vindictive “screw you” to marginalized people. That is Trump’s playbook.
We have gone in circles tonight, listing everything wrong. Shall we call it? I am ready to adjourn for tonight.
Jacobsen: Just double-checking…
Rosner: Trump has no constraints at this point. He is desperate to distract from Epstein. He is a lame duck, so reelection is not an immediate concern. Yes, he cares about the midterms, but not enough to moderate his behaviour. Everything he does now is driven by cruelty and greed.
He has doubled his net worth since taking office—from around $1.5 billion to over $3 billion—through crypto and other questionable deals. And this ballroom project? That alone could net him another $20–30 million in shady contributions and payoffs.
Jacobsen: All good for tonight. I will talk to you tomorrow.
Rosner: Thank you very much.
Jacobsen: Thank you.
Rosner: Bye.
Jacobsen: 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): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/08/08
Rick Rosner discusses James Cameron’s warnings on AI and nuclear warfare, spotlighting the real-world risks of a Skynet-like future. Shifting focus, he critiques Trump’s $50M bounty on Venezuelan President Maduro, calling it political theatre. Rosner also condemns ICE’s lowered age requirements and Trump’s vanity projects, including excessive Oval Office decorations and a $200M White House ballroom. He argues these actions reflect a broader pattern of corruption, distraction from scandals, and catastrophic public health mismanagement.
Rick Rosner: We did not talk about this yesterday—James Cameron. He did more than anyone to popularize the idea of artificial intelligence taking over, through the concept of Skynet in The Terminator (1984). That was 41 years ago.
He now has a new movie coming out, Ghosts of Hiroshima, which is about nuclear warfare. I am not sure how the film addresses atomic weapons. Still, Cameron has been researching both the bombs themselves and the global infrastructure meant to prevent their use.
He says the rise of AI presents a serious risk of a real-world Skynet scenario. AI processes information much faster than humans. If placed in any decision-making capacity, it could reach catastrophic conclusions faster than we could shut it down.
Moreover, honestly, Cameron is someone worth listening to. He may not be a scientist, but he has conducted extensive research for decades and understands the magnitude of the risks as well as any authority in the field.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: The United States has increased its reward for the capture of Venezuela’s President Nicolás Maduro to $50 million, based on allegations of drug trafficking and ties to criminal organizations.
Rosner: This is the head of Venezuela, right?
Jacobsen: Yes. President Nicolás Maduro. The statement came from U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi and was announced on Thursday, August 7th.
Rosner: Is there any solid evidence for this? It sounds like more political theatre, a distraction tactic, possibly even related to Trump trying to divert attention from the Epstein scandal.
Jacobsen: Venezuelan Foreign Minister Iván Gil posted on Telegram, calling the announcement “The most ridiculous smokescreen ever seen.”
Rosner: I tend to agree. Trump has branded himself as the so-called “President of Peace”—the guy who claimed he would end wars worldwide, including the Russia–Ukraine conflict, on day one. He has now been in office again for over 200 days and has achieved none of that.
Instead, here he is taking an aggressive stance against a foreign leader, putting a $50 million bounty on Maduro’s head. If people are wise, they will not attempt to collect it. Trump is notorious for not paying his debts.
Exactly. Where is that $50 million supposed to come from? Who authorized it? Congress certainly did not. It is just another baseless claim pulled out of thin air—and it is ridiculous.
Jacobsen: I saw that ICE has relaxed its age requirements.
Rosner: Previously, to join ICE, you had to be between 21 and 37. Now the age range is reportedly between 18 and 57. I looked into the complete list of requirements. You must pass multiple background checks and have a bachelor’s degree, which surprised me.
Oddly, they would allow 18-year-olds to apply, given that so few of them—perhaps one in a thousand—have a bachelor’s degree at that age. Moreover, those who do likely graduated from high school at 15, then went on to college by 18. A person who has accomplished something is unlikely to want to join ICE.
Everything this administration is doing reeks of desperation and distraction, particularly from the Epstein case. Trump faces broad disapproval across all demographics, including among Republicans, for how he handled Epstein.
He claims this has been the most successful first six months of any presidency in U.S. history, which is absurd. However, he has issued more executive actions and announcements than most presidents historically.
Jacobsen: Do we know how many executive orders he has signed?
Rosner: I am not sure of the exact count, but it is likely in the hundreds. Some will remain in effect; others will be overturned. Lately, though, his actions seem designed to overwhelm Americans and the media with constant noise, preventing focused attention on Epstein or any of his other failures.
He is a bad guy. This is somewhat trivial by comparison, but still revealing. He cut half a billion dollars in funding for mRNA vaccine research, including cancer vaccine development.
His and RFK Jr.’s approach to public health will likely result in tens of thousands of preventable deaths—both in the U.S. and globally—as critical research is shut down.
Moreover, at the same time, he is decorating the Oval Office with stick-on gold curlicues. Have you seen what it looks like now? Those chain craft stores sell ornamental moulding—filigree shapes you would use to make ceilings look fancy. He has been applying foam-core, gold-painted curlicue shapes all over the Oval Office. Dozens of them. It looks cheap and unhinged, like the work of someone mentally unravelling.
Moreover, you might not know this from up in Canada, but he also tore up the White House Rose Garden—a space over 100 years old—and replaced it with limestone tile so people can sit and eat lunch. It does not look perfect.
Jacobsen: He replaced the historic flower garden?
Rosner: Yes. Bulldozed it for tile. Moreover, now he plans to demolish part of the East Wing to build a 90,000-square-foot ballroom, projected to cost $200 million.
He claims it will be privately funded, but if you do the math, that is $2,200 per square foot—a staggering figure for a ballroom, which is essentially space. No complex plumbing. No technical installations. Just open the square footage.
That cost is roughly four times the average per square foot for federal buildings in Washington, D.C. It reeks of graft and kickbacks. He is a real estate developer. He should know how to manage construction costs.
In Canada, you can still build a home addition for around $250 per square foot. This project is nearly ten times the cost, and even more so when you account for currency differences. It is just another example of waste and corruption disguised as legacy building.
This entire ballroom project is just another way for Trump to collect kickbacks and bribes. He will find a way to siphon off tens of millions in “contributions” to fund this gaudy, unnecessary addition. It is corrupt from top to bottom.
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): 2025/08/08
Rick Rosner discusses the catastrophic consequences of submersible implosions at extreme ocean depths, clarifying earlier misconceptions and emphasizing the near-instantaneous nature of such deaths. The conversation shifts to Israel’s military actions in Gaza and the West Bank, where Rosner critiques the disproportionate violence and political motivations behind the ongoing conflict. While acknowledging the justice in confronting Hamas, he condemns the execution of the war as corrupt and potentially genocidal, reflecting on global inaction and moral failures.
Rick Rosner: I was thinking more about what happens when you’re three miles deep in the ocean and your submersible fails.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Why were you thinking about that?
Rosner: I had made some inaccurate comments earlier and wanted to clarify. The analogy I used—saying it is like having 20,000 forty-five-pound plates on you—was oversimplified. In reality, pressure increases by about one atmosphere (14.7 psi) every 33 feet underwater. At a depth of three miles—around 15,840 feet—that amounts to approximately 7,000 psi, or about 470 atmospheres.
If your submersible implodes at that depth, the effect is instantaneous and catastrophic. The water at a depth of three miles is about 1% denser than at the surface. While inside the sub, you remain under normal atmospheric pressure—until the hull fails. When that happens, the pressure difference causes an immediate collapse.
So death occurs instantly, not just due to the collapse of air pockets in the body, but because the entire body is subjected to extreme compression. Soft tissues and fluids are not spared. You essentially get obliterated. It’s not like being neatly reduced to a skeleton—it’s more like being shredded and compacted simultaneously.
But the person is already dead by the time this happens. The time between hull failure and death is less than a second. That submersible expedition—the Titan—was an act of negligence. The person who authorized that trip made reckless decisions, resulting in preventable deaths.
Jacobsen: Moving on, has anyone modelled or simulated what happens during such an implosion?
Rosner: Probably. I have not searched for it, but someone has likely developed a simulation. Modern AI could generate the code for such a simulation quickly—hundreds of lines of accurate code within minutes. For example, it can already simulate complex aerodynamics with high precision.
Jacobsen: Shifting topics—Reuters reported that Prime Minister Netanyahu announced Israel intends to take military control of all of Gaza.
Rosner: Netanyahu and members of his far-right cabinet have been accused of war crimes by international organizations. While debates continue over whether the situation in Gaza meets the legal definition of genocide, the International Court of Justice has found plausible grounds to investigate Israel for potential genocidal acts.
Many observers believe Netanyahu is prolonging the war for political reasons, including avoiding prosecution on unrelated corruption charges. That assessment is widely shared. He is often compared to Trump for his tactics and disregard for institutional norms. While Israel has legitimate security concerns regarding Hamas and other militant groups, there are less destructive ways to pursue those objectives.
Jacobsen: What about the West Bank?
Rosner: The West Bank situation is also deeply inequitable. According to the United Nations, more than 500 Palestinians were killed in the West Bank by Israeli forces and settlers in 2023 alone—the highest figure in over 15 years. In contrast, around 30 to 40 Israeli soldiers and settlers were killed in comparable periods. The disparity is stark, often exceeding of 10 to 1 ratio.
That suggests the occupation is not just about security, but also systemic control and expansion. Settlements continue to expand, often displacing Palestinians. Far-right elements within the Israeli government support this expansion with minimal accountability.
What, if anything, can the global community do? Not much, aside from issuing condemnations. Historically, many wars have unfolded with limited global intervention, particularly in regions like Africa. Every U.S. administration has presided over an international landscape filled with injustice. What makes today’s conflicts, like those in Gaza and Ukraine, different is their visibility and political impact in the West.
It brings home the point that when you have a corrupt leader willing to wage war, you cannot simply beat them or shut them down, even if the war itself is unjust.
Jacobsen: Would you say this war is unjust?
Rosner: No. The Israel–Hamas war is just in its premise—Hamas committed atrocities and must be held accountable—but the means of prosecuting it have become corrupt and, arguably, genocidal.
Over 1,200 Gazans have been killed just attempting to access food at distribution points. Israeli forces have opened fire or dropped bombs in those areas.
The way the war is being conducted is unjust. While Hamas deserves to be dismantled, not everyone in Gaza deserves to suffer or die. Israel has killed about 3% of the Gaza population. That number is devastating. Every person in Gaza now faces the possibility of being unjustly killed, as Israeli forces push civilians around, bombing and shooting with semi-indiscriminate tactics.
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): 2025/09/04
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.
Tsukerman assesses the Armenia–Azerbaijan peace trajectory after the August 8 talks in Washington. She notes a memorandum of understanding, constitutional hurdles in Armenia, and momentum behind the Zangezur Corridor linking Azerbaijan to Nakhchivan and broader Eurasian trade. The United States is shifting from the sidelines to mediator and economic guarantor, while Russia and Iran seek to obstruct. Turkey’s alignment with Baku, EU energy needs, and China’s ties frame the stakes. Tsukerman outlines Armenia’s gradual pivot from CSTO, defence procurement challenges, heightened intelligence cooperation, and risks from revanchist actors that could imperil a durable settlement.
Interview conducted on August 16, 2025.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: We are here with Irina Tsukerman, a New York attorney and geopolitical analyst. We will be discussing the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict and regional stability. How is this conflict proceeding? How is it reshaping South Caucasus geopolitics? And what are the interests of Russia, Turkey, Iran, and various Western actors in this?
Irina Tsukerman: At least formally and on paper, the conflict is moving toward a conclusion. The gatherings in Washington last week were held on August 8, a symbolic date given the events of August 8, 2008, when Russia went to war with Georgia over South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
This represented a significant step toward resolving the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict. Several key points were achieved. First, Azerbaijan and Armenia signed a memorandum of understanding, which advanced the negotiation process and formalized a framework for further talks and the resolution of remaining issues. The most significant obstacle remains Armenia’s constitution, which contains provisions—such as references to Nagorno-Karabakh—that contradict recognition of Azerbaijan’s sovereignty. Constitutional changes are required for normalization.
Another major issue that has already been resolved, and which had U.S. backing, is the recognition and creation of the Zangezur Corridor, envisioned as a trade and transport route. This corridor would connect mainland Azerbaijan to its exclave of Nakhchivan through southern Armenia. More broadly, it would link Central Asia to Europe and Turkey, bypassing Russia and Iran, with U.S. involvement.
As part of this process, Azerbaijan and the United States agreed to create a working group for development projects in areas such as defence, security, and the economy. Restrictions under Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act, which had previously limited U.S. assistance to Azerbaijan, were addressed, enabling greater U.S. humanitarian and development engagement. The U.S. role in the Zangezur Corridor’s economic growth would mean a formal role in supply chains and infrastructure. Unlike earlier proposals that envisioned outside actors managing the corridor as “controllers,” the current arrangement is that the U.S. will act as a political and economic guarantor, helping Azerbaijan and Armenia administer it. The aim is to integrate the South Caucasus into a central trade hub and to contribute to normalization between Armenia and Turkey.
Another key outcome is that the United States is now positioning itself as a more potent mediator in the remaining negotiations. This is not the end of the conflict—an official peace treaty has yet to be signed—but the expectation is that progress will continue. The U.S. is no longer on the sidelines in a self-imposed absence from the diplomatic process; it will take a more active role in all aspects of the talks, becoming a visible partner and engaging trilaterally with both Armenia and Azerbaijan. This also strengthens U.S. bilateral relations with both countries.
However, concerns remain that Russia and Iran will attempt to interfere and disrupt the process, as both have strategic reasons to prevent the Zangezur Corridor from functioning. Russia views it as a challenge to its regional influence, while Iran is wary of being bypassed by new trade routes that diminish its economic leverage.
Jacobsen: Now, regarding why Russia and Iran are against the corridor—what are the key reasons?
Tsukerman: First, both would lose out economically because international trade would bypass them and flow directly to Turkey. Turkey and Iran have an economic and political rivalry, even though they cooperate on many anti-Western issues. When it comes to day-to-day trade, tensions are evident, and Iran would prefer to benefit from any regional realignment rather than be excluded. However, its past threats to Azerbaijan have made that essentially a non-starter, which is why Azerbaijan is eager about the prospects of sidelining Iran.
As for Russia, relations with Azerbaijan have deteriorated significantly. Tensions escalated after an attack on an Azerbaijani civilian airplane, which killed passengers. Russia never formally admitted responsibility. It issued what was essentially a half-measure—an acknowledgment without either a genuine apology or an admission of error. Many believe the attack was deliberate because, on the same day, President Ilham Aliyev was flying out of Grozny back to Azerbaijan and may have been the real target of the operation.
Things only worsened afterward. Russia arrested numerous Azerbaijani businesspeople, tortured them, and several ended up dead. This led to an official confrontation with Azerbaijan, and Baku is expected to bring a legal case in international courts over the downing of the civilian aircraft.
There have also been language-related tensions. Azerbaijan has begun dismantling Russian-language associations—essentially shutting down organizations that were using language as a cover for pro-Russian activity. At the same time, Russia has targeted the Azerbaijani diaspora to influence the government’s pro-Western economic policies.
Moscow has also attacked Azerbaijan’s oil and gas deliveries to Ukraine, including pipelines affiliated with the Aliyev government, causing significant damage. There have been multiple such operations, and they are likely to continue.
To make matters worse, some Russian deputies—while drunk—publicly threatened to invade Azerbaijan. Baku’s unofficial response was, in essence: go ahead, make our day. Azerbaijan pointed out that it has Turkish and Israeli drones, while Russia, in that context, is increasingly seen as outdated, relying on “tanks and horses.”
Jacobsen: So, if there were any actual attack or invasion, is Azerbaijan prepared?
Tsukerman: Exceptionally so. The Azerbaijani military is well-prepared and battle-hardened. Any such action by Russia would be ill-advised.
Jacobsen: Was there not a case early in Putin’s presidency when Russia invaded a nearby territory?
Tsukerman: Yes, you are thinking of Chechnya. Russia launched two wars there and ultimately crushed the separatist movement, reasserting control.
Jacobsen: After Chechnya went from being essentially autonomous to coming under a Russian-backed puppet regime, what lessons did Azerbaijan and Armenia draw from that experience?
Tsukerman: Azerbaijan certainly learned a lesson. It is unlikely to host Russian troops anywhere near its territory in the foreseeable future. Armenia, by contrast, has hosted Russian forces since the 19th century. But now, Armenia is turning away and even expelling Russian troops, though it remains highly dependent on Russia for trade. That shift is a significant signal.
There have also been a couple of official coup claims from the Pashinyan government. One was characterized as a political coup attempt. Another was said to be linked to the Armenian Apostolic Church, which historically has functioned in many ways as a proxy for Russian influence. That said, the current head of the Church appears to be somewhat more pro-Western. Although Prime Minister Pashinyan accused him personally of involvement in that attempted coup, he has not presented credible evidence.
At the same time, there has been a crackdown on Russian-linked Armenian oligarchs. That in itself is not a bad thing; it demonstrates Armenia’s seriousness in dismantling entrenched, conservative, clannish, and revanchist political elites while advancing in a more reformist direction. However, this could backfire if the public perceives it as an attack on faith rather than on pro-Russian institutions. It could also backfire if carried out in a way that seems blatantly undemocratic or self-serving. Pashinyan is not known for being particularly transparent or democratic.
So even if these moves benefit the West by diminishing Russian influence, they could still backfire—either by allowing Russia to strengthen its position, or by producing a scenario similar to what happened in Georgia under Mikheil Saakashvili. In Georgia, reforms were associated with corruption and authoritarianism, which ultimately led to the rise of the Georgian Dream party in 2012—a more pro-Russian faction with stronger economic appeal. What we do not want to see is a repeat of the Georgian scenario in Armenia.
Jacobsen: What about Iran’s role?
Tsukerman: Armenia and Iran have been cooperating fairly well. However, Armenia is now more likely to diversify further and expand trade with China. Azerbaijan is already doing this, partly as a signal to the West to pay more attention to the region. Unfortunately, neither the Biden administration nor the Trump administration took that bait, so both Armenia and Azerbaijan have continued building parallel relationships with China.
China is increasingly co-opting Azerbaijani media and forming official partnerships, and Armenia is likely to follow the same path. Iran, however, is concerned about Azerbaijan because it is a Shia-majority country but with a secular government and foreign policy. This is very different from Iran itself and from many Shia populations in the region, such as the Lebanese Shia and Iraqi Shia communities.
Jacobsen: You mentioned Iran’s concerns. Can you expand on why Azerbaijan represents such a threat to Iran’s regional position?
Tsukerman: Azerbaijan poses both a religious and an ethnic challenge to Iran. Unlike Iran, Azerbaijan does not recognize the doctrine of velayat-e faqih—the rule of the Islamic jurist. It has always had a different system, even before the Soviet era, offering a distinct Shia model that is secular and nationalist rather than theocratic. Iran, which has long used religion as a political tool to recruit followers as far away as Afghanistan and Pakistan, is threatened by Azerbaijan’s example.
Its demographics also threatens Iran. It has a vast plurality of Azerbaijani and other Turkic peoples. Much of the Iranian population historically was not Farsi-speaking. Persian, as we know it, developed after the Arab invasions, written in the Arabic script and blending Indo-Persian traditions with heavy Turkic influence. Azerbaijanis are one of the largest Turkic groups within Iran.
While many Iranian Azerbaijanis are prominent in the military and political elite, many others remain fiercely independent, culturally closer to Baku than to Tehran, and feel discriminated against. Their language has been suppressed, their culture diminished. Large communities live near the border with Azerbaijan, around what is ironically called the “Bridge of Friendship.” When I visited, it was clear that the name is misleading. Iran threatened Azerbaijan with invasion in this area during the Second Karabakh War in 2020, moving weapons and tanks close to the border.
Iran has also attacked Azerbaijani diplomatic facilities through proxies. For example, there was an armed attack on Azerbaijan’s embassy in Tehran in January 2023, blamed on a “lone madman,” but widely believed to have had official backing. In London, a pro-Iranian Shia group stormed Azerbaijan’s embassy in 2022. These incidents highlight serious tensions. There have also been direct threats from Iranian officials, prompting even Turkey to intervene diplomatically.
Jacobsen: That brings us to Turkey. How has Ankara shaped this dynamic?
Tsukerman: Turkey considers Azerbaijan a significant sphere of influence, especially economically. Politically, their positions sometimes diverge. For example, SOCAR, Azerbaijan’s state oil company, has been targeted by mobs in Turkey angry over its energy partnership with Israel. Recently, SOCAR and Israel concluded a lucrative deal, which drew protests from pro-Palestinian groups in Turkey.
Culturally and strategically, however, Turkey and Azerbaijan are very close. During the Second Karabakh War, Turkish Bayraktar drones proved decisive. It is not true that Syrian mercenaries or terrorists were deployed on Azerbaijan’s behalf. That claim has no basis. First, it did not happen. Second, it would have been impractical: most Syrian fighters speak only Arabic, while Azerbaijan’s operational environment requires Azeri or Russian. They would have been ineffective.
The real advantage was the drones. They were a superior military technology that gave well-equipped Azerbaijan a decisive edge over the poorly equipped Armenian forces. This technological advantage, combined with Armenia’s lack of adequate support from Russia—neither politically nor militarily—was a key reason for Armenia’s defeat.
Importantly, Pashinyan initiated the war without properly consulting Moscow, and that miscommunication deepened the rift between Yerevan and the Kremlin. Meanwhile, Turkey continues to pursue its goal of expanding its energy and strategic influence across the region.
There are pipelines and connectivity projects with Georgia, Hungary, and other countries—economic corridors that enhance regional integration. Azerbaijan is seeking greater influence overall, both politically and economically. These developments certainly benefit Turkey as well, and they also strengthen ties with the United States through interconnected diplomatic initiatives.
Jacobsen: What about Western actors—how are they positioning themselves?
Tsukerman: The European Union benefits from stability and security in the South Caucasus, primarily when the region is oriented in a more pro-Western direction. The EU particularly benefits from Azerbaijan’s oil and gas exports, which help reduce dependence on Russian energy. For example, southern European countries facing shortages now view Azerbaijan as a reliable and stable supplier. By contrast, Qatar has recently threatened to boycott Europe over various political disputes. That kind of volatility makes Azerbaijan’s energy partnership even more attractive.
Jacobsen: What about the best-case scenario—a multi-aligned, multilateral peace that works for everyone? Is that even remotely possible?
Tsukerman: Not with the current regimes in Russia and Iran. If Iran’s regime were to change into something less aggressive, that could open possibilities. But there are no guarantees. A return to a nationalistic monarchy, for instance, would not bode well for minorities, even if it might be less regionally aggressive. The best-case scenario would be a federated, secular, liberal republic. But that is highly unlikely given the current trajectory.
If an IRGC-led faction takes power, it would be even more aggressive. With Russia, meaningful change is also improbable. Even if Putin is removed or dies, his successors are likely to pursue a similar line. Without sweeping, forceful reforms overseen with Western support—something akin to a Peter the Great–style transformation combined with a post–Nuremberg trial reconstruction—you will not see a profound political shift. Russia’s centralized, authoritarian tradition has persisted for centuries, and it is not likely to change on its own without both a reformist-minded government and integrated Western assistance.
Jacobsen: Let us turn to Armenia. Suppose it shifts away from the CSTO toward deeper engagement with the EU and the U.S.—in areas such as defence procurement and training. How would that change the dynamic?
Tsukerman: That process is already underway. Prime Minister Pashinyan’s refusal to participate in the most recent CSTO events and joint sessions signals his move away from the alliance. Both Azerbaijan and Armenia have also petitioned to withdraw from the OSCE Minsk Group. That group, which once included the United States, Russia, France, and Germany, failed to achieve any meaningful diplomatic resolution of the conflict. Its prestige has collapsed, just as the CSTO’s relevance has eroded.
This also indicates a genuine orientation toward Washington as the primary diplomatic intermediary. But when it comes to economic transformation, it will be a gradual process. Armenia cannot shift overnight to a fully American system. There is too much at stake, and risk guarantees would be necessary for businesses, especially given the potential for political instability and coups inside the country.
On weapons procurement, there are interoperability issues. Armenia has long been dependent on Russian and, more recently, Indian weapons. It has started purchasing French arms, much to Azerbaijan’s displeasure, but those deliveries have been slow. So far, there is more theoretical defence cooperation between France and Armenia than actual supplies. Meanwhile, Armenia still depends heavily on Russian prototypes. And U.S. weapons are expensive—Armenia is a poor country, so it is unclear how much it could realistically afford.
For now, the United States would likely need to bolster its presence through observers, ideally with EU support, to act as quasi-security guarantors against Russian aggression. That, however, raises concerns for Azerbaijan. They worry about revanchist, anti-Pashinyan factions gaining strength, cancelling peace agreements, and then using Western backing against Azerbaijan. That is a real risk that Western policymakers need to address more openly.
Jacobsen: So, intelligence cooperation will become more important?
Tsukerman: Yes. Intelligence-sharing will likely increase to identify potential threats. But here we run into a problem. Under the Trump administration, many intelligence officials were purged, and pro-Russian voices became prominent. Some within that administration even had connections with Russian- or Armenian-linked religious factions that are highly politicized, revanchist, and deeply opposed to Pashinyan. That leaves matters in an uncertain place unless the EU decides to get far more involved and counterbalance the risks of intelligence leaks from the U.S. side.
France, in particular, has generated distrust in Armenia. French policy has been heavily influenced by the Armenian diaspora and by pro-Russian lobbies connected to it. These diaspora networks do not necessarily support Yerevan’s current government. They view Pashinyan as weak for having lost the war and instead push unrealistic “Greater Armenia” ideas. While such projects are not feasible in the 21st century, they are being promoted by groups with money, political clout, and Russian support.
This brings another layer of interference. Some NGOs and groups funded by Russian and Armenian oligarchs have simultaneously contributed to infrastructure development in Armenia while also siphoning funds, fueling corruption, and advancing damaging nationalist agendas. These forces have obstructed the peace process rather than supported it.
Jacobsen: So Armenia is tilting West, Turkey is carefully balancing its position with Azerbaijan… Does this mean that, in the post-Soviet era, Russia’s footprint in the region is shrinking?
Tsukerman: Yes, Russia’s footprint is retracting, but not by choice. Moscow has had to pull many of its so-called peacekeepers from the South Caucasus due to logistical needs in Ukraine and because of its setbacks in Syria. Russia has already lost many of its top personnel in Ukraine, leaving behind poorly trained replacements with limited equipment. Its capacity for direct military involvement in the region has been diminished.
However, Russia’s ability to bribe, recruit spies, and employ terrorist tactics has not diminished—if anything, it has increased. Worse still, Russia has trained Iran in these same methods. Iran has been actively recruiting spies and agents in Azerbaijan and deploying them both against Azerbaijan itself and Israeli interests worldwide.
Azerbaijan’s security services, with support from Israeli counterparts, have been successful in uncovering and neutralizing many of these operatives domestically. Still, Iran has managed to operate with relative impunity, particularly in peripheral regions, making it difficult to track down everyone influenced by Iranian propaganda or infiltrated from across the border. The result is a complex, asymmetric security environment that is likely to intensify in the short term.
Jacobsen: What about guarantors such as the EU, U.S., and OSCE? Could they credibly sustain long-term peace negotiations?
Tsukerman: The OSCE is effectively finished in this role. The Minsk Group, which it oversaw, failed for decades to achieve progress, and both Baku and Yerevan have petitioned to withdraw from its framework. The OSCE itself has shown little enthusiasm for continuing with a process that dragged on fruitlessly for 30 years.
For a time, the European Union tried to take on a more direct role, but that effort fell apart once the EU shifted its focus to the Russian threat and the war in Ukraine. President Macron of France personally attempted to get involved, but Azerbaijan does not view him as a neutral party. Complicating matters further, other factions within France have interfered with Macron’s policies, weakening consistency.
That said, circumstances could change. For the first time in decades, France, Azerbaijan, and Armenia all face the same threat—Russia. That shared concern could potentially bring them closer together, depending on top-level commitments. Much will hinge on the French elections in 2027, when Macron’s term ends. His party already suffered significant losses in the recent snap elections, and both the radical left and radical right are on the rise. It is uncertain whether his successor will maintain France’s current anti-Russian stance.
Jacobsen: What about the U.S. side?
Tsukerman: The U.S. under Trump at least seems to view economic and personal benefit in acting as a guarantor. Washington would stand to gain not only from oil and gas cooperation but also from investments in digital infrastructure and broader regional projects. So there are economic incentives for the U.S. to remain engaged.
In addition to energy, there are also prospects for high-technology development and other forms of cooperation. On a more personal level, both Azerbaijan and Armenia pleased Trump by announcing they would push for a Nobel Peace Prize nomination for him. It’s unclear whether they meant they would nominate him directly or support existing nominations from elsewhere. Regardless, he views this as a positive gesture and as welcome publicity on top of what has otherwise been a series of diplomatic failures.
Because of this, he is likely to remain committed to the process for the time being. What happens once he leaves office, however, is uncertain. It’s not clear what direction U.S. policy will take afterward. By that point, the peace process may already be sufficiently formalized, and many of the issues causing political friction in Washington would likely be resolved. I presume that the next administration would probably maintain the course—unless there are radical political changes inside either Azerbaijan or Armenia.
Jacobsen: All right, let’s call that one a close. Thank you for your time.
Tsukerman: Thank you very much for your time today, on what has been our most intensive week so far. 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
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/03
Andrea Schnepf is the Managing Director at nepf LLC. She has spent 20+ years helping global executives lead with confidence through transformation. She’s led high-stakes M&A, AI, digital, and organizational transformations for top consulting firms and Fortune 1000 companies. Her approach combines strategy, capability building, and execution to ensure real impact.
Schnepf emphasizes that tech layoffs reflect a shift toward capability alignment and AI-driven transformation. She highlights agility as clarity, not speed, and stresses reskilling tied to defined roles. Careers are evolving into fluid, skill-based journeys where adaptability, leadership, and continuous growth ensure lasting organizational impact.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What do Microsoft’s recent layoffs reveal about the evolving priorities of tech giants?
Andrea Schnepf: Microsoft’s recent layoffs illustrate a broader shift: tech giants are no longer managing for headcount volume but for capability alignment. These moves are less about reaction and more about repositioning the workforce around AI, platform innovation, and emerging growth bets. We see this pattern across industries: future-ready organizations are constantly recalibrating talent to stay aligned with where value is created next. The message for employees is clear: relevance is measured less by tenure and more by how closely your skills connect to the organization’s future direction.
Jacobsen: How can companies balance profitability with proactive restructuring?
Schnepf: The balance lies in linking workforce decisions directly to business outcomes, ensuring profitability while strengthening the capabilities needed for long-term growth. Restructuring shouldn’t just be about protecting margins; it should be about creating the capacity to invest in the future. At nepf, we’ve seen companies succeed when restructuring is paired with transparent communication, targeted reskilling, and manager enablement. Those moves protect near-term performance while creating the adaptability leaders need to navigate whatever comes next.
Jacobsen: How is AI accelerating the shift from traditional roles to more fluid career paths?
Schnepf: AI is accelerating the move away from rigid job descriptions toward fluid, skill-based roles that evolve alongside technology. We’re moving toward a blended model of human creativity and machine intelligence. That elevates the importance of skills like strategic thinking, emotional intelligence, and tech fluency. We guide leaders to frame careers as flexible, skill-based journeys instead of rigid hierarchies. That shift enables organizations and employees alike to adapt as roles and priorities are continually reshaped.
Jacobsen: How are boards and executive teams redefining “agility”?
Schnepf: Agility used to be synonymous with speed. Today, agility is about clarity, the ability to reallocate capital, talent, and strategy without destabilizing the business. Boards are recognizing that agility is a governance priority, not a management afterthought. The organizations that adapt best are those that invest in aligning their people strategy with their business strategy, rethinking roles, and skilling leaders to lead through ambiguity. At nepf, agility is embedded into our culture, which allows us to pivot quickly to evolving client needs and deliver tailored, lasting impact.
Jacobsen: What signals should employees look for as signs of possible vulnerability to restructuring?
Schnepf: The earliest signals are often cultural, not financial. Silence from leadership, vague strategy updates, or a heavy emphasis on efficiency without a growth narrative all raise red flags. We encourage employees to watch where investment flows — into which skills, technologies, and growth areas. The question isn’t only “is my role secure?” but “does my work connect to where the organization is going next?” Stay curious about where your skills intersect with emerging needs and be proactive in shaping your narrative.
Jacobsen: How can companies invest in reskilling without creating uncertainty?
Schnepf: Reskilling works best when it provides certainty rather than speculation. That means tying learning to a clear destination role, a defined timeline, and transparent opportunities. We’ve seen the strongest outcomes when learning is built into the culture and framed as a shared expectation of growth. That framing signals that reskilling is an investment in everyone’s future, not a countdown clock. When employees see reskilling as a bridge to growth, rather than an undefined promise, it builds confidence instead of anxiety.
Jacobsen: What impact will workforce recalibration in large tech firms have on smaller startups?
Schnepf: Large-scale recalibrations often release highly skilled talent into the market. The influx of top talent creates new possibilities, but it also raises the bar for clarity, culture, and growth pathways. We see the most future-ready startups treat this moment as a catalyst to reimagine how they operate, moving beyond simply adding headcount to intentionally building the structures, leadership, and culture required to scale. The real impact isn’t just a talent boost; it’s the chance to accelerate organizational maturity and compete on a larger scale.
Jacobsen: How might the concept of a “career” be redefined with role fluidity?
Schnepf: The career ladder is giving way to the career lattice. Traditional linear progression is being replaced by nonlinear, skill-based growth. A “career” is no longer defined by holding a title for decades, it’s about cultivating a dynamic, living portfolio of skills and experiences. At nepf, our culture embodies this: employees work across functions, engage directly in strategy, and continuously shape both their growth and the company’s. In an era of disruption, stability doesn’t come from role permanence, but from the enduring ability to deliver value in evolving contexts.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Andrea.
–
More info: http://www.nepf.co.
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): 2025/09/02
Sapira Cahana is a New York-based mental health counsellor (MHC-LP) and is an interfaith chaplain-in-training specializing in existential and relational therapy.
In this interview, Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Cahana explore the nuances of loneliness, aloneness, and relational identity. Cahana emphasizes that absolute aloneness does not exist—human beings are always born into relational contexts and networks of meaning. Loneliness, she explains, arises when subjectivity is denied, echoing thinkers like Simone de Beauvoir, Julia Kristeva, and bell hooks. Together they discuss solitude, dissociation, trauma, spiritual framings of alienation, and the role of authentic dialogue in healing. Cahana argues that slowing down, embracing reflection, and reclaiming subjecthood transform loneliness from a painful condition into an opportunity for recognition and growth.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Two things always come to mind when people talk about loneliness. The first is loneliness as a state of mind, and the second is aloneness as a state of being. How do you separate those two, and why is it essential to make that distinction?
Sapira Cahana: The first thing I want to say is that there is no such thing as absolute aloneness. We are all born about others and in dynamics with the broader world. Every human birth occurs through another person, usually as the result of two people. Even with scientific interventions such as in vitro fertilization, surrogacy, or neonatal incubators, human beings always emerge within a network of relationships and dependencies. We are never truly isolated in origin. So, while there are experiences of feeling alone or being lonely, no person exists as a complete island outside of humanity.
Yet, despite this, people can withdraw or become isolated. That experience of isolation can create loneliness. In the end, though, human existence is always embedded in relationships—with others, with the world, and with cultural and social structures. That is an important point, because in a highly atomized modern society, we often prize individuation and separation from others. Individuation is essential, but if it comes at the cost of denying our relational nature or cutting ties with our communities, roots, and shared world, it can foster loneliness.
I would define loneliness as the experience of being cut off from one’s subjectivity, agency, and autonomy, while also feeling disconnected from others and one’s inner life. Simone de Beauvoir, the French existentialist philosopher, described loneliness in part as the denial of subjectivity—the condition in which a person is treated as an object, unable to have their subjecthood recognized. This reduction to objecthood and the struggle to reclaim one’s autonomy and voice capture an essential dimension of loneliness.
Other thinkers expand on this theme. Julia Kristeva, a French-Bulgarian psychoanalyst and philosopher, has written about loneliness in terms of mourning and melancholy, framing it as a kind of ineffable grief—something deeply felt but difficult to articulate. Bell Hooks, the American cultural critic and feminist, addressed loneliness in her book All About Love. She argued that love is the highest form of human connection and that loneliness often arises from systems of domination. For hooks, loneliness is a byproduct of domination and suppression: the suppression of self, the blocking of authentic connection, and the obstruction of love.
Many other profound thinkers have explored this subject, but these feminist and psychoanalytic perspectives are particularly illuminating.
Jacobsen: Are there ways in which people can almost put life on pause, to look at it from different angles and gain insight into themselves, their place in the world, and their lives? Sometimes that may feel like loneliness, but in reality, it is not.
Cahana: Are you talking about therapy?
Jacobsen: Yes, that would fall into that category.
Cahana: Of course, people can choose solitude deliberately. There is no question that there are times when separating oneself is valuable. For example, being alone in nature can offer immense insight. The Romantics often reflected on this kind of solitude. It is essential to distinguish this intentional solitude—which can be restorative—from the alienation of loneliness, which is often experienced as painful disconnection.
That was their whole ethos. They would go into nature and experience awe on their own or in small communities. So, of course, there are ways to be alone. Instead of being a doer, you become a being, of course.
But, ultimately, the larger truth is that we are in a kinship relationship with the world—that there is no such thing as true aloneness. There are experiences of deep loneliness, which are intrinsic to being human. No one is impervious to that experience—from the Dalai Lama to anyone else. We all encounter moments of profound alienation from the self, from the world, and from others.
We all ask ourselves at times: “Am I the worst person to exist on this planet? Do I deserve a place?” And we also have moments of deep aggrandizement where we think, “Is this world completely mine? Am I indomitable?”
So, there’s this complex that we all carry, and we can each vacillate between the two states. Ultimately, the central piece is that we are selves capable of accessing both deep self-alienation and deep self-aggrandizement. That is the existential lens on loneliness and alienation. Of course, there are other lenses as well.
Jacobsen: What about people who frame it supernaturalistically, saying that the sense of loneliness is a sense of being distant from God? What insights can those traditions potentially provide—whether from Judaism or others?
Cahana: Interestingly, you frame it that way. From a religious perspective, that experience is completely translatable as alienation. It is a sense of removal. And the antidote to loneliness is indeed closeness—coming into proximity, into relationship, into kinship with the self, with others, with the world, and with the divine. Religious and mystical traditions certainly have insights into loneliness.
For example, Jewish, Christian, and Islamic thinkers often describe loneliness as separation from God. Mystical traditions, such as Sufism, speak of God as the Beloved, a proximate figure of intimacy. Sufi poets like Rumi frame divine relationship as closeness to the Beloved, countering loneliness with intimacy with the divine.
This is not dissimilar to what Julia Kristeva described as unspeakable grief, what Simone de Beauvoir understood as the denial of subjectivity, or what bell hooks (Gloria Jean Watkins) called the domination that suppresses authentic love and connection. So, even across traditions, there is a common recognition of loneliness as alienation, and of the need for proximity and relationship as its response.
Jacobsen: What about the feminist lens of being with someone but apart? Alone together, in terms of connection. People must often report that when they show up at couples therapy, for instance.
Cahana: Absolutely. That dynamic of being with someone but still profoundly alone is a common report in relational therapy. It highlights that loneliness is not merely about the presence or absence of people, but about the quality of connection and recognition within relationships.
Indeed, the relationship with others can produce loneliness. What that looks like, of course, is the desire for another person to mirror us in a congruent way—and the pain of feeling as though the mirror is not reflecting what we want to be seen. These dynamics often play out between the innate self and the external self when those two do not align. And because the other is also a subject with both an innate and an external self, their misalignment can clash with ours. Through the relationship, these selves may fail to match—and so, yes, you can be alone with another person. There is no question about that.
The construct of being alone can also take form in anonymity—for example, being in Mumbai, surrounded by millions of people yet known by no one. That can produce experiences of profound isolation and alienation, or it can stir feelings of awe and reverence for the immensity of life. The experience itself is not inherently pejorative. Loneliness is only one possible outcome.
Once we acknowledge the denial of subjecthood, the next step is reclaiming one’s subjectivity. It means working through and realizing that these dynamics are systemic—rooted in the interaction between subject and other, subject and object. In that realization, a deep sense of power can emerge, as one insists on being recognized as a subject.
Jacobsen: What about cases of trauma along that spectrum? Situations where a person is not only alienated from their subjecthood but is dissociated—perhaps only half-conscious of it unless they are in a therapeutic space where it can be brought into fuller awareness?
Cahana: Yes, that is also a form of alienation—from the self. In dissociation, the self becomes fragmented and incongruent, not holding its parts together. The result is an inner disconnection: a lack of congruence between self and world, and even within the self itself. This fragmentation leaves portions of the self inaccessible, creating a profoundly alienating experience.
In therapy, we often distinguish between “capital-T” Traumas—major, life-altering events—and “small-t” traumas, the cumulative, usually less visible disruptions that shape identity and relational patterns. Both can generate dissociation, fragmentation, and alienation. It is, indeed, a profoundly complex and painful condition that many people suffer from regularly.
When we speak about it, the biggest problem is the ineffability of the experience. How do you describe being alienated from yourself while still speaking as yourself? It is an awful feeling. But I’ve also read research and engaged with thinkers who note that dissociation is not always pathological. The dissociative state can also be the flow state. In flow, there is still a central self-directing experience. It does not feel alienating, but somewhat fluid and integrated.
By contrast, traumatic dissociation involves not having a grasp on what is occurring—perceiving reality through a foggy lens and not feeling connected. That is the key difference: flow is absorbing, while trauma-induced dissociation is fragmenting.
Jacobsen: What about anticipation, future projections, or even idealizations? For example, when someone says they are going to “find themselves” at Burning Man for the first time. They’re projecting forward, imagining a deeper connection with themselves in community—almost as if community itself is part of their identity.
Cahana: That’s the idea: becoming more at one with oneself through projection into a transformative experience. Why do we seek out such experiences? When we remain stuck in routine and the perfunctory, it becomes difficult to perceive differences. Contrast becomes the teacher.
This is what Simone de Beauvoir illuminated in her analysis of the subject–object dynamic, and it echoes the Hegelian dialectic. There is always a tension between subject and other, each claiming recognition. When we become conscious of this dynamic, it is revealed as relational. When we remain unconscious, it is harder to articulate our thoughts.
Contrast makes things visible. It is the same with language. For instance, speakers of Arabic may note differences between Moroccan, Palestinian, and Syrian dialects—each saying the same thing in slightly different ways. That comparison produces awareness.
The same happens when we travel to places where we do not speak the language at all. Suddenly, we cannot ask for our most basic needs. No one knows us, and we do not know how to express ourselves. People seek that experience of dislocation and contrast, precisely because it reveals what is usually invisible in everyday routine.
People are looking for a taste of contrast—a taste of loneliness where we are both somewhat in control and at the same time completely releasing control. We actively seek this out. Why would we seek it unless it offers something meaningful to produce, to think through, to work through, and ultimately to encounter the self?
Jacobsen: In that sense, is the self an alignment of different selves—a linguistic self, a sensory self, an emotional self? When those selves are mostly in sync, we feel aligned, present, and able to act effectively and authentically in the world.
Cahana: That brings me back to a philosophy class where we discussed the diachronic self and the debates of John Locke and David Hume. Are there different theories of how the self is constructed? Is there a grand unifier, some essential self at the core?
Maybe, maybe not. I do not have a perfect answer. But we all have different relationships to that very question. So when we seek out experiences of loneliness—or encounter them without seeking them—the relationship to either a unified self or a multiplicity of selves becomes a question each individual must reckon with.
Jacobsen: What about dreams—when someone becomes lucid, waking up inside the dream? That seems like a version of the self that belongs partly to waking life and partly to the dreamscape, where things are less rule-bound. Does that tell us something about self and loneliness?
Cahana: Perhaps, though it says much about loneliness specifically. It does, however, remind us that the self is something to be encountered. That’s the only answer I can offer here. I want to think about it more.
Jacobsen: There’s a saying: the opposite of love is not hate but indifference. Is there something similar to loneliness?
Cahana: Yes. The opposite of loneliness is an authentic relationship. And yet it is so challenging to create a truly phenomenological relationship—one of genuine presence and recognition. Eye contact that sees the other is rare. So often we perceive one another through fragments, through pre-digested, habitual responses.
Much of daily life reflects this. You can speak to many people, spend the entire day in meetings, and have pleasant conversations. But at the end of the day, when you reflect, you may realize that what occurred was moving through interactions—not truly being with others. That absence of authentic relation is its form of loneliness.
The relationship to not being mirrored, or not being seen, comes down to the dissonance between the ideal self, the authentic self, the external world, and the inner world—all while we sift through vast amounts of information daily. With technology, this has only intensified. We consume endlessly, but are rarely reflected to ourselves.
We live in an era of horoscopes and memes, where people say, “That’s so me,” and adopt quotes as guiding principles. But these are snippets, banter—not real dialogue. What is missing is sustained conversation and presence. That is why my therapeutic approach is so practical, though often dismissed. People say, “I talk all the time. Why do I need a therapist? I don’t need someone to listen.” Yet, if they truly reflect, they realize how few people listen to them, and how rarely they listen to others. That is profound alienation.
The antidote to loneliness is slowing down. It requires entering into the well of loneliness itself and then emerging into subjecthood—into recognition.
I think of Sara Ahmed, who frames emotions as political. I cannot recall her exact phrasing on loneliness, but she suggests it can be an experience of resistance—feeling something is not quite right, and pushing against it.
Jacobsen: In a sense, are we living in the era of soliloquies? If people are not being heard and not listening, dialogues collapse into monologues. Monologues, when extended, become soliloquies.
Cahana: The existential therapist Emmy van Deurzen speaks to this. She distinguishes between dialogue, duologue, and monologue. A genuine dialogue is the authentic encounter—the eye-gazing, phenomenological relationship. A duologue is a conversation between two people, where they trade anecdotes. For example: “I have a cat.” “You have a cat.” “Here’s my cat photo.” “Here’s yours.” That is pleasant, but not deeply connecting.
She also speaks of monologues or soliloquies—where no listening occurs at all. A person may come to a therapy session, recount their entire day, and leave. That can be cathartic, and I do not judge it. But as a relational therapist, I feel responsible for ensuring that the “sacred third”—the shared relational space—is upheld. I depend on the client to hold it with me, but I also have that responsibility.
Jacobsen: Any favourite quotes? What comes to mind for you? And your final thoughts?
Cahana: My final thought is this: we all experience loneliness. It is intrinsic to being human. And it can also be the most powerful experience once we claim our subjecthood from within it.
Jacobsen: Thank you once more for your time and expertise, Sapira.
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): 2025/09/01
Amos N. Guiora, J.D., Ph.D., is a legal scholar and former IDF Lieutenant Colonel whose work focuses on institutional complicity and the legal accountability of bystanders and enablers. Shaped by his Holocaust-survivor parents and counterterrorism background, Guiora pioneered legal frameworks addressing bystander culpability, authoring The Crime of Complicity, Armies of Enablers, and The Complicity of Silence. His advocacy inspired Utah’s 2021 bystander law. Through the Bystander Initiative at the University of Utah, he advocates for criminalizing enablers, arguing that religious, educational, or athletic institutions often prioritize protecting perpetrators over victims.
Guiora speaks with Scott Douglas Jacobsen about the complex intersections of antisemitism, anti-Zionism, and legitimate criticism of Israel. Drawing on his personal history as the child of Holocaust survivors and his professional background in law and counterterrorism, Guiora distinguishes between anti-Israel sentiment and antisemitism, noting how political leaders like Netanyahu exploit the confusion for strategic gain. The discussion explores Holocaust denial, intra-Jewish tensions, Orthodox-secular divides, and international law, emphasizing the need for precise definitions and caution in labelling. Guiora stresses that criticism of Israel is not inherently antisemitic.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: We are here with Amos Guiora, Director of the Bystander Initiative. We are going to discuss antisemitism today. This is one of the last interviews in that series for the book project, Conversations on Antisemitism, so thank you for participating in it.
Dr. Amos Guiora: I appreciate it. My pleasure.
Jacobsen: I have encountered several different approaches to this issue in the broader discussion. There are two main streams. One argues for a static definition, while the other supports a more fluid, ongoing conversation. When you think about antisemitism, what kind of language do you use to approach it, if at all?
Guiora: I think one needs to be cautious about instinctively throwing down the flag of antisemitism. However, as I told you when we spoke a couple of days ago, I view this through the lens of being an Israeli, not necessarily as an American Jew. From the perspective of an Israeli, it has been nearly two years since October 7, 2023.
As someone deeply involved in demonstrations, rallies, and efforts against the government, I am fervently—an understatement—opposed to the Netanyahu government. That does not make me anti-Israeli in any way. I firmly believe that criticism of this government, whether by Israelis or by non-Israelis, by Jews or non-Jews, is entirely legitimate.
I belong to the camp that says legitimate criticism of Israel, when based on knowledge and understanding, is not antisemitic. Full stop. I have friends who, with reasonable minds though differing views, believe that all criticism of Israel is inherently antisemitic. I do not subscribe to that position.
So, putting on my Israeli hat—well, I do not have much hair, but still—I see criticism of what is happening as necessary. The fact that hostages remain in captivity—the 49 hostages still being held—and the reality that we are engaged in a purposeless war in Gaza all compel me to be highly critical. As you know, I have spoken at rallies in Haifa and Jerusalem. I am also writing a book about Netanyahu’s enablers, naming them by name. None of this makes me antisemitic.
So, the definitional issue is this: do we say that any criticism of Israel is automatically antisemitic? I do not think so. Is there antisemitism in some of the criticism? Indeed, remarkably, it is not grounded in knowledge or understanding. However, as a lawyer, definitions are crucial. Words must be narrowly defined, specifically defined, and carefully applied.
So I am very cautious about labelling, “Oh, he is antisemitic, she is antisemitic.” Is there antisemitism? Of course there is. An attack on a synagogue is antisemitic. The attack in Chile, which I saw reported the other day, was antisemitic—attacks on synagogues, attacks on Jews. You are in Canada: the Jewish man who was attacked in front of his children in Montreal—that is antisemitism. I saw something similar in Paris.
However, there are also situations involving Israelis. I think it was in Barcelona: an Israeli family was sitting in a restaurant, speaking Hebrew. The owner approached them and asked, “Are you speaking Hebrew?” They said yes. He told them, “Leave now.” Is that antisemitic, or is that anti-Israel? I do not know.
Where does Zionism, or anti-Zionism, fit into this analysis? I define myself as a Zionist who believes in the state of Israel. Obviously, I served in the IDF, and I absolutely believe in the legitimacy of the state of Israel. I assume—though, as the first three letters of the word remind us, assumption can be risky—that anti-Zionism is the denial of Israel’s right to exist. I know that position is out there.
Notwithstanding the UN resolution many decades back, I take anti-Zionism to mean the denial of Israel’s legitimacy. I also know there are Jews who are anti-Zionist. My assumption—and I say this cautiously—is that this position denies Israel’s right to exist. For me, is that antisemitic? Or is that anti-Israel? It lies somewhere between those categories. I do not always know what that means. There is also a revisionist history that contributes to this.
However, the state of Israel exists, and it is not going anywhere. To deny its existence, for me, is far off the beaten path. I do not understand where that comes from. Much prejudice toward Jewish people seems to depend on a prior definition—what is a Jewish person?
Now, you pointed out something intriguing: the history of the Israeli Supreme Court, which dates back many decades—if I recall correctly, to the early 1970s or early 1980s. The question in that case was: What is a Jew? What was the impetus for the case? What was the deliberation process? Moreover, what was the outcome?
I admit I do not know enough about the case itself. However, I can tell you that, traditionally, there has never been much question about what defines a Jew. According to the Torah, a Jew is someone whose mother is Jewish. Unlike in Islam, where the father’s faith determines identity, in Judaism, it is the mother’s faith that is considered significant.
There has been a lengthy discussion of what it means to be a Jew. Years ago, it was in Haaretz, the Israeli newspaper. There was an article debating whether one primarily identifies as an Israeli or as a Jew. That is a fascinating question. If I have to choose between the two, I define myself as an Israeli.
I also think, in the context of historical antisemitism, that reasonable minds may disagree. However, there is a strong school of thought that says Christianity historically placed blame on Jews as the “Christ killers.” In 1965, Pope Paul VI issued Nostra Aetate, a declaration rejecting that charge and affirming that Jews collectively were not responsible for the death of Jesus—it was the Romans. However, for nearly 2,000 years, the accusation of Jews as Christ killers hung over us.
In the Middle Ages, antisemitism manifested in other forms: Jews were portrayed as bloodsuckers, accused of ritual murder, or seen as running the banks—stereotypes tied to families like the Rothschilds. The “Christ killer” accusation was perhaps the most important element of this long history of antisemitism.
Fast forward to Hitler: Was Hitler antisemitic? Of course—virulently antisemitic. There was no state of Israel at the time, so the Holocaust was entirely about Jews. The Holocaust is the seminal event in the history of antisemitism, unhinged as unhinged can be.
In Israel today, we have both Orthodox (including Hasidic) Jews and secular Jews. The conflict between secular and Orthodox Jews is very real. Many in the Orthodox community, by rabbinical order, refuse to serve in the IDF. For secular Israelis like me, and for those of us whose children serve in the IDF, this refusal is outrageous. There are no words for it.
To give an example: there is a cartoon showing soldiers marching in one direction to the draft while Orthodox Jews head the opposite way, travelling to Ukraine to pray instead of serving. This captures the sense of division.
So the question arises: Does my criticism of Orthodox Jews for refusing military service make me antisemitic? I do not believe so. However, among secular Israelis, there is genuine hatred toward the Orthodox for this reason. I can point to friends who say openly, “We hate the Orthodox.” Moreover, when they say hate, they mean hate.
On the other hand, just three weeks ago, extremist Orthodox groups declared “war on the state of Israel.” They even posted banners to that effect. They then held a violent demonstration two weeks ago. Frankly, I was sorry the police did not crack down harder.
So it is not very easy.
Jacobsen: It is the Pope’s “relationship status.” It’s complicated. I think that sentiment applies here as well. Now, what about something I have not explored as much in conversation—the issue of intra-Jewish, or inter-subethnic, tensions: Ashkenazim versus Sephardim versus Mizrahim, and so on? Today, these often surface as jokes. People have told me such jokes, though the terminology can be strong.
Guiora: Jokes, of course, are often rooted in reality. If someone harbours hatred within the broader Jewish community, does that count as antisemitism? First, I do not think antisemites in the broader world distinguish between Sephardic Jews, Russian Jews, Ethiopian Jews, or Ashkenazi Jews. To them, a Jew is a Jew. That is a different question from what you are asking.
Historically, when the state of Israel was founded, it was led mainly by Ashkenazi Jews from Europe, including Ben-Gurion and others. When Jews from Middle Eastern countries, particularly Sephardic Jews, came in the 1950s—many from Morocco—it is well documented that they felt discriminated against by the Ashkenazi establishment. That reality was very much present at the time.
Where are we now, in 2025? The situation is no longer what it once was. Intermarriage has played a role in bridging divisions, and the IDF serves as a great melting pot. In the army, Jews from Yemen, Ethiopia, the broader Middle East, including Sephardim and Ashkenazim, as well as Russians, all serve together. The shared experience of service brings people together.
That is not to deny that discrimination existed in the past. I remember when Ehud Barak, either running for prime minister or already serving, publicly apologized to Sephardic Jews for the discrimination they experienced in the 1950s. You cannot argue with people’s lived perceptions; if they felt discriminated against, that was real for them.
However, by 2025, I do not think this will remain a significant issue. Some may still use it—perhaps politicians for their own expediency—but in the broader sense, within the context of antisemitism, distinctions between Ashkenazi, Sephardi, Mizrahi, and other Jewish groups are, in my view, a non-issue.
Jacobsen: It is politically incorrect for many people to express certain prejudices openly. However, during periods of rising antisemitism, people will seize upon whatever current issue exists and use it as a justification to air their preexisting biases—under the pretext of the present controversy.
Guiora: I understand that. As I have mentioned, I give numerous talks. On occasion, I have faced demonstrations, had police protection, or even been spat on while inside a car. I never felt that was antisemitism. I felt they were attacking me as an Israeli, full stop.
After my Holocaust book came out in 2017, I received death threats. Those threats were posted on neo-Nazi platforms—one styled after Der Stürmer—and in other places. In my opinion, those threats were antisemitic. They included terrible things: “Hang your favourite Jew,” or “Who wants to see Amos’s bloody scalp?” That was clearly antisemitism.
By contrast, when I have faced demonstrations against me, I felt those were anti-Israel, not antisemitic. Once, I was invited as a keynote speaker at a major conference on antisemitism. It was a great honour. There were so many police that they even escorted me to the men’s room.
I told them, “Fellas, I can take care of myself. I do not need police with me in the bathroom.” Was the heavy security due to fear of protesters? Was that fear about antisemitism or anti-Israel sentiment? Given the context of the conference, I assume antisemitism.
However, in other talks, when people shouted things about Israel, I considered that anti-Israel, not antisemitic. I believe there is a clear distinction between the two.
Jacobsen: Do you think antisemitism is rising?
Guiora: According to groups like the ADL and AJC, who track statistics in the U.S. and Europe, the answer is yes. However, distinguishing whether incidents are anti-Israel or antisemitic is not always straightforward.
For example, recently in New York with my wife, we made a conscious choice not to speak Hebrew in the streets. Is that fear of anti-Israel reaction or fear of antisemitism? I do not know.
We are very conscious of these things. When I travel, I refrain from wearing anything that identifies me as Israeli. The Israeli Foreign Ministry has issued strong recommendations—almost guidelines—not to speak Hebrew in public, not to wear swag with Hebrew writing or Israeli symbols.
I have a religious Israeli friend who wears a kippah. He planned to travel to Europe with friends, all of whom also wear kippot. However, the security concern was significant. Simply being visibly Jewish today, in certain places, carries real risk.
My friend said he would only travel with his group if they did not wear kippot in Europe. One of his friends replied, “I will not take my kippah off in Europe.” My friend responded, “Then I cannot go with you.” So is that fear of anti-Israel sentiment or fear of antisemitism? Yes—it is both.
Jacobsen: Do you think that from an outside perspective, there is really no distinction being made between Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jews?
Guiora: If someone hates Jewish people, they hate Jewish people. When a person is yelling in the street, “Fuck the Jews” or whatever, they are not distinguishing between Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jews. I do not think they even know the difference. Alternatively, if they do, it is irrelevant.
Jacobsen: Has there been any legal progress since that 1970s case?
Guiora: To my understanding, no. The question remains open. According to Jewish law, a Jew is defined as someone born to a Jewish mother. That has raised complicated questions regarding conversion. For instance, who conducted the conversion? Was it an Orthodox rabbi or a Reform rabbi? To the best of my knowledge, the State of Israel—through the Chief Rabbinate—does not recognize conversions conducted by Reform rabbis. That remains a live issue.
From my perspective, anyone who sincerely wants to convert to Judaism should be welcomed. However, the Rabbinate, dominated by Orthodox Judaism, does not recognize non-Orthodox conversions. Politically, the government often accommodates this because it needs Orthodox parties for coalition-building. That is simply the reality.
Jacobsen: It reminds me of something: years ago in Ireland, there was a debate about priests offering televised blessings for those unable to attend services. I joked—if you record it and replay it throughout the day, do you receive perpetual indulgences? I will leave that question to you. What about outside Israel, in census data? How are people defining Jewish identity around the world?
Guiora: Good question. Here in Utah, as I understand it, when you ask leaders of the Jewish community how many Jews live here, the standard response is about 5,000. It is a round number that gets repeated because there is no precise count. That is how the community itself tends to present it.
If someone’s father is Jewish but the mother is not, then in Israel, they would not be identified as Jewish. For the sake of community purposes elsewhere, they might be accepted as Jews—but not in Israel. Today, in much of the West, such individuals would indeed be considered Jewish. However, in Israel, the Orthodox Rabbinate controls these questions, and their position is clear: Jewish identity follows the mother.
Outside Israel, particularly in Reform communities, there is much greater tolerance. If someone wants to decide that they are a Jew, the response is often, Zay gezunt—so be it. My view is similar: if somebody wants to define themselves as a Jew, God bless them. Seriously.
Jacobsen: What circumstances have you felt involved in genuine, virulent forms of antisemitism directed at you, not just anti-Israel sentiment?
Guiora: I grew up in Ann Arbor, Michigan. I did not experience antisemitism in my childhood. Perhaps once, at Kenyon College in Gambier, Ohio, someone said something foolish. In law school at Case Western—no, not at all. Working in Washington, D.C.—again, not at all. Serving in the IDF for 20 years—none.
Now, having been back in the United States for 20 years, the only antisemitism I have personally experienced was tied to the Holocaust book I published. That brought death threats.
I received one typed letter, postmarked Cleveland, Ohio. (You probably do not even know what a typewriter is—you are too young.)
Jacobsen: They invented typewriters at about the same time they invented dirt.
Guiora: Anyway, the letter said: Amos— not “Dear Amos,” just “Amos.” The writer had read my book or read about me and wrote, “The next Holocaust is sure to happen, and you will be one of the first victims.” That is antisemitism. There were also comments online, like: Raise your hand if you want to see Amos’s bloody scalp. What is that?
Jacobsen: Unless this person knew of some obscure historical practice about scalping Jews, it is simply violent antisemitic language directed at me personally.
Guiora: Once, at three o’clock in the morning, I woke up to a whole series of threats. By seven or eight in the morning, they began posting my home address. That is serious. With the Holocaust letter, when my address was made public, we immediately reached out to the police. I understand that someone also contacted the FBI, which was the right thing to do. The moment you publish someone’s home address, that crosses a dangerous line.
What is Holocaust denial? Let me tell you a story. In 2005 or 2006, I was invited to debate the legality of what some call the “fence” and others call the “barrier” between Israel and the West Bank. I was to debate a professor of law.
On my way to the debate, one of my research assistants called me and said, “Professor Guiora, have you read what he writes?” I told her I had not. She said, “He is a Holocaust minimizer.” I asked, “What the hell is that?” She explained: “He acknowledges that the Holocaust happened—thank you—but he says it was two million victims, not six million.”
So I arrive at the debate. We debate the barrier, not the Holocaust. However, as the only child of two Holocaust survivors, whose grandparents were murdered in the Holocaust, I refused to shake his hand afterward—no reason to.
Later, I received a scathing letter from the university provost accusing me of violating principles of academic dignity and integrity. I considered my options: (1) respond politely, (2) write, “Dear Mr. Provost, go fuck yourself,” or (3) delete the email. After thinking it through—tick, tick, tick—I deleted it.
A couple of years later, I ran into the same professor, the Holocaust minimizer, at a conference. He greeted me warmly: “Amos, it is great to see you!” He extended his hand. I looked at it and refused again. No way I would shake that hand.
Now, is he antisemitic? Is he an idiot? Is he anti-Israel? What is that?
Jacobsen: What it brings to mind is the deeper concept of intersubjective agreement—how we define ourselves, how we define our history, how we define offence, and then how we define each other in relation to all those things. It is a sliding scale across all of them.
Guiora: Exactly. When the death threats came in after articles about my book, I had to confront my late mother with this reality. She had no idea Holocaust denial even existed. Living in Israel, it was outside her frame of reference. I remember the painful conversation: not only explaining that people deny the Holocaust, but that some of those same people wanted to kill her son. She could not grasp it.
My mother could not wrap her mind around Holocaust denial. That is no trivial matter. By the way, my mother did not define herself as a Holocaust survivor—she defined herself as a Holocaust winner. She defeated the Holocaust. For her, denial was incomprehensible.
I remember sitting with her in her apartment in Jerusalem. This is how my mom spoke: “Are you fucking kidding me?” Moreover, I said, “No, Mom, I am serious.” She could not, would not, wrap her mind around it.
Jacobsen: What is Holocaust denial? At its core, it says: It did not happen. Holocaust minimization says: Yes, it happened, but the scale was smaller—two million, not six million. That is just another form of denialism, a style of revisionism. On a conceptual spectrum, you could call one pole Holocaust acceptance and the other pole Holocaust denial. In between lies minimization. So yes, it is denial, just by another name.
Guiora: As you know, I am frequently interviewed and meet with numerous people. There are only two categories of people with whom I absolutely refuse to interact. One: neo-Nazis. Two: Holocaust deniers. With them, there is nothing to discuss. They are utterly anathema to me. I engage with a wide range of people—I have even dealt with Hamas. But neo-Nazis and Holocaust deniers? No way.
Jacobsen: Does your being ex-IDF complicate matters, in terms of how people conflate Israeli and Jewish identity—directing hatred at Jews through their opposition to Israel?
Guiora: That is a fascinating question. Are the mistakes in Gaza being used as justification for antisemitism? That is the issue.
Is it antisemitism to call Israel’s actions “genocide”? Some of my American Jewish friends would say yes—instinctively. However, I also have Israeli friends who are deeply, deeply concerned about what the IDF is doing in Gaza. They are not antisemitic. They are Israelis criticizing their own government.
Would some of them say that international criticism of Israel is antisemitic? Perhaps. I have friends who believe that. However, for me, criticism of Israel—especially informed, substantive criticism—is not the same as antisemitism.
The mainstream does not think about Gaza through the lens of antisemitism. They think about it through the lens of: What is Israel doing in Gaza? That is how Israelis themselves frame it.
Jacobsen: Even if it has not been settled in Israeli courts for over fifty years, are there other courts that have a standard, working definition—not widely accepted, but at least functional? Of antisemitism? Or of “Jew”?
Guiora: [Laughing] Jesus, I hope the rest of the world has better things to do than to ask, What is a Jew? Please. When this Gaza war ends, the ICC (International Criminal Court) or the ICJ (International Court of Justice) may have to decide what to do with Netanyahu and others. My expectation is: nothing.
However, I do not view that through the lens of antisemitism. I view it through the lens of international law. Are alleged war crimes being investigated or not? That is the question. Still, I have no doubt some frame it as antisemitism.
For example, some of my friends argue that any potential arrest warrants against Netanyahu or former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant are predicated on antisemitism. Their reasoning is: “There are no arrest warrants against Hamas. There are no arrest warrants against Hezbollah. There are no arrest warrants against others. Therefore, if the only arrest warrants are directed at Israelis, it must be antisemitism.” I am aware of that argument.
However, realistically, no one is going to arrest “Bibi” Netanyahu. No one is going to arrest Yoav Gallant. Any such warrant would be performative.
Is it performative because of antisemitism? Some people absolutely say yes, especially when looking at the long list of others who have committed atrocities. There is an ICC arrest warrant against Putin for war crimes related to Ukraine. There have also been proceedings against leaders like Duterte at the International Criminal Court, though not Assad of Syria, despite his horrific record.
So yes, there is a legitimate debate about selective justice. However, whether that stems from antisemitism is contested.
Jacobsen: On March 17, 2023, following its investigation, the ICC issued arrest warrants for Vladimir Putin and Maria Lvova-Belova.
Guiora: Putin has not been arrested—unless I somehow missed CNN today—and he will not be arrested. And neither will Netanyahu. These warrants are performative.
Why do I say that? Because, frankly, Putin does not even know the thing exists, and if he does, he does not care. I have had people ask me, “Is Netanyahu worried about being arrested?” Jesus Christ—people do not understand Netanyahu at all. The only things he cares about are Israel and the United States. Europe, for him, is utterly irrelevant.
He uses Macron in France for his own domestic political advantage. If Macron does not understand that, then Macron needs a lesson from Netanyahu, unless Macron himself is also playing a double game for his domestic politics in France, perhaps with elections coming up.
Jacobsen: Years ago, Bill Maher interviewed Netanyahu—this must be over a decade ago. They discussed what is now commonly referred to as Christian nationalism. Certain American evangelicals want events in Israel to unfold in a particular way because they believe it will trigger the Second Coming of Jesus. It is apocalyptic theology. It instrumentalizes Jewish people for someone else’s religious narrative.
Guiora: Every time Israel is attacked—or when a European leader declares support for a Palestinian state—Netanyahu reframes that criticism as antisemitism. He plays it directly to his political base in Israel. It is a tactic. Does Macron realize that when he makes statements about a Palestinian state, it gives Netanyahu another rallying point at home? Perhaps Macron is aware of it and is utilizing it for his own base in France. Maybe not.
Jacobsen: That reminds me of Bill Maher’s point in that interview. Netanyahu, when the second coming arose. He joked, “We will have that conversation when it happens.” It was a sharp line. It connects to something much older. There is a saying often attributed to Roman or Greek thinkers: The wise consider religion false, the ordinary people consider it true, and the rulers consider it useful.
Guiora: Marx later echoed it with his line, “Religion is the opiate of the masses.” The point is the same: religion—and by extension, Israel in this context—is being used instrumentally.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Amos.
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): 2025/09/01
Alejandro Pérez is a Partner at Pierson Ferdinand PLLC, specializing in labour and employment law, cyber/privacy law, and emerging technologies. A nationally recognized employment attorney, workplace investigator, and DEI thought leader, he advises employers ranging from startups to multinational corporations on litigation, compliance, and internal investigations. Fluent in Spanish and a former HR professional, he offers cultural fluency and business insight in addressing discrimination, harassment, pay equity, and I-9 compliance. President of the ACLU of Arizona, Pérez is also a sought-after speaker and trainer. He shares his personal story to mentor others and foster fairness, respect, and inclusion in workplaces.
In this interview, Scott Douglas Jacobsen speaks with Alejandro Pérez, Partner at Pierson Ferdinand PLLC and President of the ACLU of Arizona, about workforce restructuring in the age of artificial intelligence. Pérez, a nationally recognized employment attorney, workplace investigator, and DEI thought leader, discusses how AI is reshaping job design, staffing priorities, and the need for agility within organizations. He emphasizes transparency, continuous learning, and re-skilling as critical to employee resilience. Drawing from his expertise in employment and cybersecurity law, Pérez outlines best practices for supporting employees during layoffs and highlights the long-term implications for career advancement and industry stability.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are with Alejandro Pérez. He is a Partner at Pierson Ferdinand PLLC, specializing in labour and employment law, cyber/privacy law, and emerging technologies. A nationally recognized employment attorney, workplace investigator, and DEI thought leader, he advises employers ranging from startups to multinational corporations on litigation, compliance, and internal investigations. Fluent in Spanish and a former HR professional, he brings cultural fluency and business insight to issues such as discrimination, harassment, pay equity, and I-9 compliance. President of the ACLU of Arizona, Pérez is also a sought-after speaker and trainer, and he often shares his personal story to mentor others and foster fairness, respect, and inclusion in the workplace. Thank you very much for joining me today. I appreciate it.
Alejandro Pérez: Oh, you are very welcome. Happy to be here.
Jacobsen: So, what do you consider the core business market and strategic factors driving large-scale workforce restructuring in some of the major tech companies?
Pérez: I think much of it has to do with AI investments and shifting strategic priorities from one focus to another. We are seeing a recalibration of workforce structures to better align with those shifts. Employers are positioning AI both as a cost lever and as an operational transformer. So, roles are being redefined. Many traditional roles—like customer service and certain marketing positions—are either being outsourced or replaced by AI.
Jacobsen: How is this integration of artificial intelligence and automation happening in concrete terms? How is it reshaping organizational staffing needs and skill priorities in particular?
Pérez: AI has been transformative in reshaping workplace needs, putting a heightened focus on data literacy, systems thinking, and interdisciplinary roles. What we are seeing is a strong emphasis on AI skills. That is where much of the demand and focus are right now.
Jacobsen: What about job design across the tech sector? When an organization restructures on a large scale, the meaning of a particular role often shifts—sometimes drastically. What approaches are companies taking toward that?
Pérez: The key approach is agility—being ready to pivot. It is an incredibly agile workforce and an incredibly agile business environment. We do not know what tomorrow will bring or which roles will suddenly become essential. Employers need to be prepared to pivot quickly and remain flexible as things change. Right now, massive investments and capital are flowing into AI. However, that could change and develop in different ways over time. So the most important thing is to remain flexible and adaptable.
Jacobsen: What about proactive measures that teams can take to ensure workforce agility? When restructuring, how can organizations minimize disruption?
Pérez: The first step is to encourage resilience within roles. Talk to your teams, make sure they know they need to be agile, flexible, and ready to pivot at a moment’s notice. Transparency about what is happening can reduce many of the morale issues that arise. Employees are fearful of being displaced due to AI or the potential disappearance of their job functions. I do not necessarily see that as the case. You still need people to operate AI. However, transparency helps, as does flattening hierarchies, creating cross-functional teams, and ensuring talent pools are more fluid overall.
Jacobsen: Does AI and automation function essentially as a big hammer? In other words, a larger vector per person operating it—making them more effective if used properly, but not necessarily making them obsolete?
Pérez: Exactly, that is precisely it. AI makes an employee much more efficient if used correctly. It should not displace the employee.
Jacobsen: Are there areas where people expected AI to help but instead found it counterproductive?
Pérez: I have not seen that broadly, but I can give an example from the legal field. Some attorneys have gotten into serious trouble after asking AI to draft briefs, only to find that the AI “hallucinated” arguments or case law that did not exist. Judges are coming down hard on that. We are also seeing some hesitancy in the legal sector overall, with courts creating rules around AI. In some jurisdictions, if you use AI, you must certify that you have personally verified all cited authorities, while in others, you may be barred from using AI in filings altogether. I imagine similar issues arise in other sectors as well.
Jacobsen: Have hallucinations been reduced significantly enough that AI can now be used more safely in those gray areas?
Pérez: I do not think so. In my experience, you still have to take the time to verify and quality-check everything. For example, sometimes I will experiment with AI and ask it to help me come up with an argument. I will speak to it almost like it is a person. What I have found is that some of the output is useful, but some of it is fabricated—even today. So I will give it feedback: “You gave me some fake material here.” Maybe it improves over time, but I do not use it heavily in my practice. I tend to experiment with it because, in addition to employment law, I also practice cybersecurity. I am always curious about emerging technologies and how they impact the workforce.
Jacobsen: Are there specific traditional tech roles that have been around for a while that are simply going to go the way of the dodo bird?
Pérez: I think we will see some reduction in roles like customer service. I do not believe most positions will disappear entirely, but the scale of those teams will shrink significantly. For example, in transportation, perhaps drivers with companies like Waymo could eventually be displaced. However, even there, limitations remain. In my community, a Waymo car cannot even enter. So I think the trend will be fewer large-scale positions, with a focus on consolidation—stripping down to what is essential and eliminating excess.
Jacobsen: What about adjacent industry ripples? If one industry undergoes restructuring, connected industries often feel the impact, even if not directly targeted.
Pérez: Good question. The short answer is yes—adjacent industries will inevitably feel the impact. Fewer jobs in one area directly affect the financial sector and ripple into nearly everything else. These changes also influence talent pools and the educational sector, as people recalibrate to meet shifting demands. Companies are recalibrating, and individuals must do the same—preparing for changes in their professions and careers.
Jacobsen: Does this, in your mind, bring to the fore the importance of continuous learning and re-skilling as employees face an evolving demand in the tech job market?
Pérez: Absolutely. Life has changed so much. In the past, people often worked for the same company for decades. My parents did that—my mother was a factory worker. However, many of those jobs have since been automated or robotized. Today, employees must constantly be in learning mode. The most important takeaway is to utilize whatever benefits are available. Your salary is not just your paycheck; it also includes benefits like tuition reimbursement and professional development opportunities. Employees should take advantage of these to remain competitive.
Employees should continuously seek out opportunities to learn and re-skill, especially in the tech sector, but really in any sector. Stay current on how industries are changing and how those changes apply to your role. Re-skill as much as possible, learn as much as possible, and strengthen your skill set to withstand potential layoffs. If a layoff does occur, having up-to-date skills makes you more attractive to other employers. Employers, in turn, should be transparent about changes and provide opportunities for employees to learn new skills and take advantage of re-skilling programs.
Jacobsen: What are best practices in supporting employees during layoffs in order to preserve morale and maintain future talent pipelines, in addition to protecting brand reputation?
Pérez: Good question. First, employers must comply with all applicable laws. For example, when laying off a certain number of employees, companies may have to provide legally required notice. The federal WARN Act requires this, and some states have their versions of the law. Compliance is the first step.
The second step is transparency. Communicate with employees well in advance—do not just meet the legal minimum, but provide as much notice as possible—partner with other companies to explore relocation or reemployment opportunities. Offer support like resume-writing services and career coaching. The goal is to make the process feel thoughtful and supportive rather than abrupt and impersonal.
Companies that handle layoffs this way preserve goodwill. Often, organizations that conduct layoffs will be hiring again in the future, so they want former employees to view them positively. Protecting the brand is critical. Even if some criticism arises, it is much harder for people to fault a company that treated employees with empathy and fairness. Ultimately, treat people as people. Apply the golden rule—treat employees as you would want to be treated yourself.
Jacobsen: Long-term labour economics—how will current restructuring trends redefine ideas around advancement in the technology industry and career stability?
Pérez: I think it is going to create different types of positions. We will see a restructuring that flattens job hierarchies and changes how positions are organized overall. As for career stability and advancement, I believe there will be significant opportunities for those who keep up with the times, continuously learn, and update their skills. Continuous learning will be pivotal. Employees who re-skill and adapt will be well-positioned for advancement in this evolving environment.
Jacobsen: Excellent. Alejandro, thank you very much for your time today. It was a pleasure speaking with you and meeting you.
Pérez: Thank you so much.
Jacobsen: Bye-bye.
Pérez: 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): 2025/08/31
Nina Fjeldheim is the principal of a pioneering humanist school in Norway. With a background in the history of religion and education, she advocates for an inclusive, secular pedagogy grounded in critical thinking, compassion, and curiosity. Her leadership has challenged traditional norms, emphasizing diversity, equity, and deep ethical development in education.
In an extensive conversation with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Nina Fjeldheim outlines the long and challenging journey of establishing a humanist school in Norway. The project faced multiple rejections from the government, initially because it was “not religious enough” to qualify for the same legal framework and funding as other life-stance schools. The founders argued that this constituted discrimination, as Norwegian law historically recognized both religious and humanist organizations in similar ways.
The dispute centred on the mandatory Christianity curriculum, which the school wished to replace with philosophy and comparative religion. The aim was to encourage open discussion, critical thinking, and exploration of similarities and differences among world religions. However, the authorities maintained that this approach did not conform to the approved model.
After years of legal challenges, including proceedings that reached the European Court of Human Rights, the school was eventually allowed to operate. Despite the limited public funding available to private schools in Norway, it now offers a rich program—including international trips, literature, and ethics—at no additional cost to families.
Fjeldheim emphasizes the importance of teaching cognitive and social diversity, moral reasoning, and media literacy. The school actively fosters inclusivity by integrating students from a wide range of backgrounds and abilities, confronting prejudice, and nurturing emotional intelligence through open discussion. For her, humanism is not simply the absence of religion, but a values-based approach to education that develops resilient, reflective, and socially conscious individuals.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What was the process for establishing a humanist school in Norway?
Nina Fjeldheim: We wanted to create the best school possible in Norway, and it naturally evolved into a humanist school. However, when we first applied for approval, the authorities told us, “This is not religion. You do not believe in God.”
We replied, “Christianity and humanism have long been regarded as parallel life stances in Norway.” Historically, both religious and humanist organizations were recognized and supported under similar frameworks. That understanding, however, was changing, and our application was rejected.
We submitted another application, clearly outlining the school’s humanist foundations and curriculum. This time, the authorities said, “No. This is too far removed from a standard school model.” Now, the problem was that it was too humanist.
We went back and forth with the ministry. One of the main sticking points was the requirement to teach Christianity. We did not want to present it as faith instruction, but rather through the lenses of philosophy and comparative religion. My background in the history of religion informed this approach—we wanted to explore questions such as: What are the differences between religions? What do Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have in common? Why do they share so much? How have they evolved differently?
The authorities rejected this. They said, “No. No. No. This is not acceptable.” Eventually, we filed a legal challenge, arguing that our rights were being violated under both Norwegian law and international human rights law.
Jacobsen: So, you ended up in Strasbourg?
Fjeldheim: Yes. Eventually, the case reached the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, where the issue of religious neutrality in education had already been debated in earlier cases, such as Folgerø and Others v. Norway. That case had ruled that Norway’s compulsory religious education curriculum at the time was discriminatory toward non-religious families. We drew attention to this precedent and said, “You argued in Strasbourg that anyone can start a humanist school. So why is it not working in practice?”
Ultimately, they admitted, “You’re right.” The government reversed its position. We had a meeting with the state’s legal representatives—high-level lawyers for the government. They were skilled and experienced; we, by contrast, were not lawyers, and it did not feel very secure. We thought, “How are we going to make this case convincingly?” But in the end, they agreed: we were being mistreated.
We realized we could not proceed under the original terms. Eventually, the authorities acknowledged the discrimination. They admitted, “Yes, we did discriminate against you,” and granted us the right to start a humanist school.
But in Norway, starting any private school is challenging. The country generally does not encourage private schooling. While private schools receive about 85 percent of the funding that public schools receive, the remaining 15 percent must be covered by parents.
When we started, we didn’t want to charge parents anything since no one knew who we were. There was no reputation to rely on. From July 1, everything had to be in place, and any expenses incurred before that date had to come out of our own pockets. It is structured to be as difficult as possible to launch a private school. On the day we were set to open, I was thinking, “How did we even get here?”
Jacobsen: Just a side note—Is it challenging to start a private school in general, or is it specifically tough to start a secular private school?
Fjeldheim: It is difficult for private schools, period. Norway does not want private schools. Only a tiny percentage of Norwegian children attend them. Most children attend public schools, and this is rarely questioned.
In our school, we see that many of our students have at least one parent who was born in another country. Those parents are often more accustomed to thinking critically about educational options, asking, “What kind of child do we have? What environment is best for them?”
In contrast, in Norway, it is typical to send your child to the closest public school. People do not often consider alternatives unless something has gone wrong.
Jacobsen: There’s a very high level of trust in the public school system, for sure.
Fjeldheim: Very high. Everyone has been through it, and they believe it is good. For a long time, Norwegians genuinely believed their schools were among the best in the world. Then came the PISA results, which showed otherwise.
People were shocked. I remember the public reaction—it was like, “Are we not the best?” Norway spends more money on education than most countries in the world. That part is genuine. Yet the results are pretty mediocre. So that is what we were working with. It raises the question: Why are we not getting more value out of that investment?
I ask myself the same thing. For the first three years, we did not take any money from our parents. Now we do, but we still haven’t reached the full amount we are allowed to. We receive about 95–96 percent of what a typical public school gets. Yet we take our students on a 10-day trip to Spain and a five-day trip to Athens, and they incur no additional costs for these experiences.
We have the funds to do that. And other schools do not. So why do they not have the money for this? What are they spending it on? It is not a money issue. But in Norway, most people will still say, “The schools do not get enough funding.” From my experience, we get more than enough. That is not the problem.
Jacobsen: Do you find that in wealthier societies and many industrial economies, the public often assumes that throwing more money at education will automatically solve systemic issues? Is financial magical thinking involved?
Fjeldheim: Yes, very much so. Many people believe that teachers lack the time to support their students adequately. They assume students are burdened with personal challenges that need addressing, and the response is often to hire more school psychologists, more social workers, and more special education teachers.
There is also a strong belief in inclusive education—that all students should attend the same school, including those with intellectual and developmental disabilities. What is the appropriate term? Would you say “intellectually disabled”?
Jacobsen: No, not exactly. The terminology has evolved. There are different classifications and sensitivities around the language we use. People often change the terms and believe that doing so changes the substance of the issue. What it does is shift the emotional framing. It reflects a change in social norms and affects how people respond, but the core challenges often remain the same.
For example, we no longer say “autistic child”; instead, we say “a child with autism” to use person-first language, though some prefer identity-first language like “autistic person.” The choice can depend on personal or cultural preferences.
So, in this case, you might say “a child with a learning disability” or “a child with an intellectual disability,” depending on the diagnosis.
Fjeldheim: Exactly. But it is essential to distinguish between learning disabilities—which refer to specific difficulties with reading, writing, or math in individuals with average or above-average intelligence—and intellectual disabilities, which are characterized by an IQ below 70 and limitations in adaptive functioning.
Jacobsen: So, let’s put it this way, and correct me if I am wrong—when using the ratio method of measuring IQ in children up to about age 16, if a child is 10 years old but performs intellectually at the level of a 7-year-old, their IQ would be 70, assuming the average is 100. Correct?
Fjeldheim: Yes.
Jacobsen: So we are talking about children functioning at that level and below.
Fjeldheim: Yes. But that can change depending on when the test is taken.
Jacobsen: So, we are dealing with children within that cognitive range.
Fjeldheim: Right. And you have a range—some children are not functioning well at all, while others function pretty well. Most individuals with an IQ of around 70 can learn to read and write. They typically do not have difficulties with basic literacy. Still, they may struggle with social interaction, understanding irony, or grasping unspoken social rules. That part—the social game—can be challenging.
We also have students in our school with IQs below that level. On the other end of the spectrum, we have students with exceptionally high IQs, in the top one percent.
Jacobsen: The top one percent, yes.
Fjeldheim: Yes, those students also need extra support. They often do not thrive in a conventional classroom setting without additional accommodations. So we have all of them in the same classroom. In Norway, that is standard practice, even though we used to have special schools. We no longer have those, but many students are placed in special groups within mainstream schools.
It is essentially a different way of talking about segregation. Still, more students are in those special groups now than were in the former special schools. However, we aim to create a diverse and inclusive classroom environment. At the Humanistic School, we are committed to this approach because students with diverse abilities need to learn together. It fosters mutual care and understanding. If we do not bring them together, that understanding will not develop.
Unfortunately, this approach is starting to shift. I am seeing increasing pressure to remove certain students from mainstream classrooms. Some believe it is a better idea to separate them, but I strongly disagree. There is considerable pressure to do this because many people think it is sensible. But it does not. Where will these children go? Who will they be with? How will they grow? How will they succeed?
It will not work. However, there is still a push to remove them. We even feel it from parents, who will say things like, “Why are these students here? Isn’t there somewhere else they should go?” I have said, “It seems your child is having difficulty being around peers who are less advanced than he is academically. That is something he needs to learn to manage, because it is an important life skill.”
We are a humanistic school. He must learn to interact respectfully with people from diverse backgrounds and abilities. We are witnessing a significant shift taking place.
Jacobsen: There is the Peace School in Toronto. They had initially established a school in Iran but later relocated to Toronto. They operate from a humanistic education model. They have also contributed to several publications. Now we have representation across many regions of the world. Perhaps next we will hear from someone in Taiwan—that could help complete our global map for this project.
From what I gather, what matters is not enforcing academic homogeneity but instead accepting cognitive diversity as part of human evolution and variation. Children can be cognitively heterogeneous, and we need to meet them where they are.
But I think what you are also getting at—something more subtle—is an ethos: a value system of inclusivity and solidarity. That we are all part of the same team is a central theme in the Amsterdam Declaration: the emphasis on social responsibility, not just individualism or pure communitarianism, but a respect for both, held in balance.
Fjeldheim: Definitely. We want to maintain high expectations for all students, including those who face different challenges. They, too, need to be encouraged to grow, to stretch, to improve. But for me, what is essential is that we work together as a society. And that means we need all kinds of people.
I am also very strict about how students behave toward others. We dedicate a significant amount of time to character development and social responsibility. Every time a student uses a word like “poor,” “gay,” “faggot,” “Jew,” or any other identity-based term in a derogatory way, they are required to call their parents. We take it very seriously.
Jacobsen: And it is everywhere—especially on social media.
Fjeldheim: It is. It is everywhere. They need to understand where these attitudes come from, because most of the time, they do not. I have had students in class who believe that telling an antisemitic joke is acceptable as long as no Jewish person is present.
They genuinely think the problem only arises if a Jewish person hears it. And I have had to say to them, “Okay, let’s stop and think. What is my background? Do you even know who you are talking to?”
Which is not good, you know? They do not understand. For example, they might call a Black friend “slave” as a joke. That is not okay. And then they say, “Didn’t she understand I was kidding?” I tell them, it is not about whether or not you are joking. She does not care if you were kidding. You do not call people that. You do not say that.
This particular girl had ADHD, so I said to her, “What if I told you every day, ‘I am so sick and tired of you having ADHD. You never seem to have a single clear thought. You are always going on and on—blah blah blah.”
What if I said that to you every day? How would that make you feel?
And she replied, “I would hate it. That would be horrible.”
And I said, “Exactly. That is what you are doing to your friend when you keep pointing out that she is Black. That is something she cannot change. But you keep calling it out.” They do not understand. It takes a significant amount of time and effort to help them form meaningful and respectful relationships.
Jacobsen: What about the deeper level of that—a kind of nuanced social ethic? What about instilling respect not only when someone is present, but also when they are not, maintaining a consistent image of the other person’s identity and dignity? How does that work? How do you instill that? That kind of moral consistency? I suppose it is similar to teaching object permanence, but in the social and ethical domain.
Fjeldheim: Yes, sometimes it is a long journey with them. But we address it in different ways. We teach them about the history of humanity—how people have treated one another over time. We also introduce them to psychological concepts, such as in-groups and out-groups—why we form them and why people gossip.
We explore what gossip does to us psychologically, and how devastating it can be to feel excluded, to be without a sense of belonging, without “your people.” Yes, we discuss all of these things. And we do it intentionally and regularly.
We also do a great deal of work—recently, I have been studying conspiracy theories, for example. And yes, we explore that topic in depth.
Jacobsen: I am very sorry for the lost time.
Fjeldheim: Yes. We have them play games like Bad News, for instance. It is designed to teach media literacy by letting players create and spread fake news. It helps students recognize the techniques used in misinformation and understand why certain content goes viral. They start to see what is happening behind the scenes, such as how bots and algorithms play a role.
Yes, we use games like that in class. We also address social dynamics right away. The students usually do not expect that, mainly because they are young, around 13 when they begin. They are not used to teachers stepping into social or behavioural issues directly. You know? “Why did you say that? Why did you—?” They are not used to being called out for small things. They are not used to accountability.
We address that constantly. We will say things like, “People are saying you are acting in this way,” and they will respond, “Really?” And I will say, “Yes.”
Jacobsen: Is there a way to do that—especially with students who struggle behaviorally—without triggering a cycle of guilt and shame? Because if that becomes repetitive, it creates another set of challenges, and being a teenager is already hard. It is.
Fjeldheim: No, you are right. It is challenging because while shame can be harmful if overused, a healthy sense of guilt can be constructive. If someone feels bad about their actions, they are less likely to repeat them. So part of development is learning to process those difficult emotions. They are there for a reason—they help guide behaviour and social learning.
And we try to teach them that. I also teach them that feelings are not necessarily facts. Just because you feel something very intensely does not mean it is true. It does not even tell that it is essential. You need to be able to differentiate. It is your brain—not your emotions—that helps you evaluate what matters.
But of course, that is hard to get through to them, because their emotions are so strong at that age. They confuse emotional intensity with importance. If they feel something deeply, they assume it must be true, such as, “This is the person I will always love,” which usually is not the case.
“This will destroy me, I will never recover,” and so on. We try to help them with those overwhelming feelings, not by saying, “That is not true,” but by assisting them to understand that those feelings are not always trustworthy. A feeling might seem definitive now, but six months down the road, they will likely feel very different. That does not mean they are wrong now; it just means they have grown and their perspective has evolved.
We stay very close to our students. We get to know them well. They tell us almost everything, because they need adults who listen. I think many parents assume their kids are already small adults—because they can seem mature—but we see them more as big children.
Jacobsen: Are you familiar with Kohlberg’s theories of moral development? And Piaget’s stages of cognitive development, too? When working with kids starting at 13, do you notice a specific developmental leap—such as between 13 and 14 or 15 and 16—especially after a break or over a school year?
Fjeldheim: Yes, it happens differently for boys and girls. Boys generally mature later—they lag behind girls in most cases. Some boys are pretty mature, but most are not. They still want to play, run around, and be physically active, which is more typical of younger children. Girls, on the other hand, usually stop that kind of behaviour by the time they start at our school around 13. But the boys will keep doing it for their first year.
So you see those differences. Some boys enter puberty later and then feel left behind or confused—they do not understand why their peers are acting differently. They are thinking, “Why can’t we just play like we did before?”
As a result, they end up being socially excluded, and they do not understand why. They wonder, “Why is this not funny anymore? Why do we not play the same things we did last year? What is wrong? Why do they not want to do that anymore?”
For girls, the ones who tend to lose out are often those with challenges such as being on the autism spectrum. They struggle to understand what is happening because the social cues become very subtle. You need to pick up on the subtext. It is exhausting for them. That first year of lower secondary school is overwhelming.
There is so much pressure to present yourself a certain way. You are constantly self-conscious, thinking about how you look, how others perceive you, what they think, what you just said, whether it was the right thing, whether you misunderstood something, and why they are laughing—it is a mental overload.
So it is very different for boys and girls. And physically more petite boys—those who are shorter—often struggle more. Their physical size affects how they are perceived, and they end up feeling more childish or inadequate because of it.
Jacobsen: How did you end up with the humanistic approach?
Fjeldheim: Yes. Critical thinking has become a central element across all subjects. We also have something called Bildung—it does not translate well into English. It is a German term.
It refers to the holistic development of a person, understanding the world, their place in it, and how to interact respectfully with people from different cultures without coming across as ignorant. That is what we mean by Bildung. We offer it as a standalone subject.
I often joke that it is like the “hairdresser’s subject”—because a hairdresser should be able to talk to anyone about anything without sounding uninformed. That is the spirit of it.
In that course, we teach students introductory psychology, basic geopolitics, and cultural overviews—such as what is typical in Latin America or the United States—and explain why these regions are relevant to Norway.
We also tackle complex topics. For example: Why is the N-word offensive? Where does it come from? Why is it problematic? We trace our roots back to historical origins and provide context.
We have had real success with that approach because many students genuinely do not understand why certain things are considered wrong or harmful. They appreciate it when we take them through the entire background. We end up teaching them many things they can apply in real life.
That is one part of it. Another is that we offer elective subjects that align with our core values. The students can choose from three focus areas: curiosity, compassion, and critical thinking.
We have also moved away from textbooks entirely. We are now fully digital, which keeps our materials current and gives us the flexibility to adapt the pace and content as needed. It is not about racing to finish a textbook.
We run a three-year program. The first two years focus on introducing new topics, while the final year is dedicated to in-depth exploration. That is when we revisit and build upon what they have already learned.
For example, we cover evolution in both 8th and 10th grades—it is an essential topic for us as humanists. We introduce it early, then go into greater depth later.
By the time they reach 10th grade, topics become more complex. They are expected to understand ideas in context. For example, we cover all the major religions in the 8th and 9th grades. Then, in 10th grade, they should be able to answer: What is the difference between Semitic religions and Eastern religions? What distinguishes Eastern and Western religious traditions? Why are they different? They are expected to approach these topics with more depth and a critical perspective.
We also read literature—classic works, even some that are difficult—because we want them to engage with texts that do not immediately make sense. Many students shut down when they do not understand something. They will say, “I did not get it,” and then stop reading. They do not ask questions, they do not try, and they have not learned how to cope with that discomfort.
So we teach them how to deal with that as well. We teach them stamina. Because many of them become bored quickly, they are reluctant to rework things and tend to give up easily. We actively work on that with them.
For example, after a test, they receive a five-minute video from their teacher giving personalized feedback—what was good, what needs improvement, and what they misunderstood. Then they are expected to revise and resubmit it. They watch the video, do the homework, and submit a better version.
They learn a lot that way, though they often dislike it. They feel as though they are not done after the first round. They have to go back and improve, and that is hard for them to appreciate until they are older. But it works.
They also have to read 2,000 pages of literature each year—not textbooks, but actual books.
Jacobsen: When do they graduate from the humanist school? How do you handle ceremonies?
Fjeldheim: Yes, we do have ceremonies. They graduate after 10th grade—same as they would in public school. We hold a ceremony with speeches and diplomas, and we invite parents, siblings, and other guests.
Each student receives a rose, and we share a personal message with each one. For example: “Hi, Robin. Thank you so much for always putting on a kind face. Thank you for being so attentive to others,” and so on. It is individual and thoughtful.
We also give them a yearbook with their photos and a record of everything they have experienced. For instance: “We went to the opera. We went to this event…” because every week, we take them somewhere—whether to a theatre performance, an art exhibition, or even just walking around the city looking at architecture.
We do other things as well. We strive to provide them with the whole experience, as they will appreciate it later in life. It is important. We want them to feel comfortable outdoors, not feel helpless or embarrassed. So they learn how to read a map, build a fire, cook over it, and sleep outside without feeling unsettled.
We teach them those things because they are genuinely beneficial for their long-term mental health. These are practical skills they can carry with them when they leave us.
They also get our contact information on the very first day. Every student can reach out to me—any time, about anything.
Jacobsen: And you have been doing this for many years now.
Fjeldheim: Yes—ten years now.
Jacobsen: So, enough time has passed for students to graduate, attend college, possibly even graduate school, and then return.
Fjeldheim: Yes.
Jacobsen: What is the nature of those returns? Do they say “hello” or “thank you”, or…?
Fjeldheim: They do come back—especially in the first two years after graduating. They visit all the time. For example, this year’s group just left for upper secondary school, and they have already returned during the first week.
They will say, “Okay, Nina, listen… Please go over it again. How do I say no to alcohol?” That is something we talk about—how to handle peer pressure around drinking. They often do not want to drink but also do not want to say, “I am not into alcohol,” because that makes them feel awkward.
So we give them alternative phrases—things they can say that feel safer socially.
The same applies to drugs. If you do not want to smoke a joint, you can say something like, “I get super paranoid when I smoke.” Many people can relate to that. Nobody will question whether you are for or against drugs—it becomes a personal reason, and that is usually respected.
You can also say, “It does not work for me. I completely lose it when I try,” and people tend to leave it alone.
We also discuss topics such as sharing pictures. We tell them: if you send a naked photo, never include both your face and your body in the same shot. Either show your face with clothes on, or no face if you are undressed—never both. Otherwise, you are opening yourself up to serious risk.
If you are going to send a naked photo of your body, make sure your face is not in it. We are not telling them, “Do not do this, do not do that”—because that does not work. Instead, we try to offer realistic advice they can relate to.
The same applies to other things. I tell them, “Ask me anything—I will answer as honestly as I can.”
One student once asked, “Is it dangerous to mix cannabis with pills?” I told him, “Not really, but it is worse to mix it with alcohol.” Still, I explained that if you are going to use cannabis, do not mix it with anything. You will not know what is causing which effect, or how to respond.
And most importantly, postpone it if you are going to try it, fine—but not now. Your brain is still developing. It does not need substances interfering with it. The longer you wait, the better. You have your whole life to get drunk. Do not rush. You will have plenty of opportunities.
Of course, that is hard for them to understand. Still, they trust us. They come to us, they ask, and we get to give them answers. That is so much better than them not asking anyone at all.
Jacobsen: What is the harshest form of necessary discipline you have had to apply in cases of extreme behaviour?
Fjeldheim: I think it is hardest for the kids who struggle socially, mainly when that struggle stems from something they cannot help, like a diagnosis, or when it is because they have been bullied for years. When that happens, they develop odd behaviours.
We have had students who come in and speak as though they are in an American TV show—saying things like, “Oh my God, I can’t believe you said that!” It seems bizarre, but it is not intentional. It is what they have absorbed because they have had no real social life. They mimic what they see on screens.
They have not learned how to interact. They are unsure of what to say or how to behave naturally. And that is the most formidable challenge.
But it is also incredibly rewarding—when, a year or two later, those same students are functioning socially. They have friends, can relax, and figure out who they want to be. That is when you see it has all been worth it.
That is the best part. It is both the best and the hardest.
Jacobsen: Even though you are in a region where there is funding and freedom to establish an alternative school model, in other places—like Iran, for instance—creating a humanist school would be far more difficult, as you know. Are there some aspects of building a humanistic pedagogical space that money cannot buy?
Fjeldheim: Yes. It is not easy even in developing countries, mainly because many people do not have a clear understanding of what humanism is. That makes it hard to explain what we are trying to do.
Even here, at our humanist school, we have a lot of Christian students. We do not ask about a student’s religion when they enroll. So we have a fair number of Christians, and others who believe in things like astrology or ghosts.
We do not have many Muslim students, though, even though there are a lot of secular Muslims in Norway. Many would rather send their child to a Catholic school because it is “a school of God.”
They are less comfortable with us because we are very open about being a secular institution. There is no room for God in our curriculum. We do not teach religion as truth; instead, we teach students how to understand the world through the lens of science. That is our guiding framework.
I would love for us to have more diversity at the school, but that is a real challenge, especially in places like Uganda or elsewhere in Africa, where we are seen as being in direct opposition to Christianity or Islam.
Parents there cannot accept the idea of their child choosing not to follow the family religion, because often, religion is all they have.
I spent half a year in Ghana, working as a volunteer. And there, your religious group or church is your entire social safety net. If you leave it, you are on your own—and that is dangerous, because there is no state support system like we have here in Norway.
In Norway, you can live independently, as the government provides minimal support and helps you find employment. However, in many other places, your survival depends on your network, which includes your church and extended family.
And those communities often will not tolerate you drifting toward humanism, secularism, or atheism.
Jacobsen: Yes, it is seen as a weird group. In the United States, humanism and atheism are often racialized—seen as “white things” by some nonwhite communities.
Fjeldheim: Right.
Jacobsen: Organizations like Black Nonbelievers are very open about that, and it complicates outreach. There is also some evidence that similar dynamics exist in some Indigenous communities in North America, according to interviews.
The sample size is small, but the interviews are very long-form, and the patterns show the same phenomenon.
Fjeldheim: Yes.
Jacobsen: What are some misinformed or just naive things that even secular people say about humanist education—things they think are true but are not? Or cases where they misunderstand what is happening because they are missing the bigger picture?
Fjeldheim: One of the significant issues is that humanism is so diverse. Many things can be categorized under the label of “humanist.” Even in Norway, we have people who identify as Christian humanists.
It becomes confusing because there is the tradition of Enlightenment humanism—philosophical and historical—and then there is humanism as a life stance, which is often conflated with other ideas.
In Africa and Asia, the terms “humanitarian” and “humanistic” are often used interchangeably.
Jacobsen: Yes.
Fjeldheim: So it is hard for people to understand what it means. Even my parents did not get it. I was raised Christian, and when I started working in the humanist movement, my dad asked, “Can you write me an email explaining what you do? People are asking, and I do not know how to answer them.”
He said, “I do not know what you do, but please explain what it is.” I mean, even in Norway—where surveys show that about half the population identifies most closely with a humanistic life stance—most people still do not know what that means.
Jacobsen: That’s so interesting. I was also informed about how humanitarianism and humanism are often confused in some African regions. In some cases, that confusion is even exploited—some groups present themselves as humanist to attract international funding, only to disappear after receiving the money.
Fjeldheim: Yes, that’s been a concern raised by some leaders in the humanist movement from those regions—about the need to keep an eye on that kind of behaviour.
Jacobsen: Yes.
Fjeldheim: Yes. And what are you going to do, you know? It’s hard because the concept itself is often misunderstood. People ask, “What is life without God?”
I think many people assume that humanists aren’t very deep or spiritual. I get similar reactions around being bisexual. There are prejudices from both sides. The gay community sometimes sees bisexual people as indecisive, like we don’t want to be “all gay.”
Jacobsen: Like you want to stay safe. Or have a foot in both worlds.
Fjeldheim: Exactly. They think we’re just keeping one foot in the heterosexual world to avoid fully committing. Like we’re muddying the waters—trying to have the best of both worlds but not fully owning either.
It’s that same question: “Why can’t you just be like everybody else?”
And I can see where that sentiment comes from. With humanism, too, people say we copy religious traditions—especially the ceremonies, which are essential to Norwegian humanists.
People think we’re just mimicking Christianity, or borrowing traditions and repackaging them. And honestly, that’s not entirely wrong. However, it’s also true that humans have been holding ceremonies for a long time. These things aren’t uniquely Christian or Islamic—they’re human.
Ceremonies have always been part of how we come together as communities.
And honestly, creating those shared spaces—where people can feel safe, experience joy, and feel like they belong—is one of the most challenging yet essential parts of building a humanist life stance community. I think we’ve underestimated just how important that is to people.
Jacobsen: Alright, I’ve got one for you—what are your favourite humanist quotes? Kurt Vonnegut is acceptable. Others?
Fjeldheim: Oh, so many… That’s a hard one. I think the one I use the most—it might not be classically “humanist,” but it fits—is: “If you’re going through hell, keep going.” That’s Churchill. I say that a lot. Don’t sit down. Keep moving.
Don’t stay there. Get the fuck out. You know? And that’s hard, because when you’re in it, you don’t know what to do. You freeze and stay stuck. You can’t see a way out—but keep going. Somewhere down the road, you’ll get somewhere. Eventually, so I think that’s the quote I use most.
And for something more humorous—there’s Aleister Crowley, “the wickedest man in the world,” soaking in cognac and cocaine. It’s great.
Jacobsen: There you go. That’s for the Thelemites out there.
Fjeldheim: He’s funny. But honestly, I don’t usually quote a lot. I like reading quotes, however. Like, when I give speeches, I do sometimes find ones I love—like a good quote from Luxembourg, for instance. I seek them out, but I’m really into heavy metal. That’s where most of my favourite quotes come from.
Jacobsen: Is that part of your speech? Where are the punks?
Fjeldheim: They’re not there! I’m trying so hard. Every time I start—
Jacobsen: —off with the punk rock museum? Down in the basement? Have you seen it?
Fjeldheim: Where?
Jacobsen: It’s on the central strip downtown—between Lebowski Bar and American Bar, kind of halfway between them. It’s a fairly wide area, located just off the park on the left side. There’s a stairwell leading down. I remember going in just as they were closing.
They were dressed to the nines in full punk gear, and then spoke with the most polished, polite accents. Super proper language. It was brilliant. And I was like—hold on, I’m still trying to process all this.
Fjeldheim: Yes. However, at black metal concerts in Norway, you’ll notice that they don’t require many guards. At hip-hop shows, they do. It’s just that nothing much tends to happen at black metal shows. So ironically, it’s one of the friendliest communities—just a bunch of people who never really fit in elsewhere, all coming together in the black metal scene. Additionally, during Reykjavik Week, there’s an old public toilet-turned-punk museum.
Jacobsen: Yes! That’s exactly what I was talking about.
Fjeldheim: Yes, that place is cool, but very small. You can bang on some drums, there’s stuff all over the walls, but that’s about it. Still, I’ve been there.
Jacobsen: I wonder if they play mostly black metal in there. Favourite bands?
Fjeldheim: Yes, I’m really into Norwegian black metal. Very nationalistic in that regard—conservative for Norway, at least! I’d say Satyricon is one of my top choices. Mayhem. Darkthrone—I like them too. I even travelled to Belo Horizonte in Brazil just because that’s where Sepultura is from. There wasn’t much else to do there. Still, I insisted, “We need to go to Belo Horizonte because of Sepultura.” I also enjoy classic heavy metal, but black metal is my acquired taste.
Jacobsen: Alright, side note—what’s the actual difference between black metal and heavy metal?
Fjeldheim: Oh, black metal is… more raw. You’ll hear that distinctive black metal vocal style—it’s harsh, screechy, chaotic. It’s wild. With heavy metal, you can understand the lyrics. In black metal, usually, you can’t. That’s part of the aesthetic. So, black metal is more into Satan and the whole “spawn the serpent” kind of thing. Death metal, on the other hand, is more about death itself. But yeah, black metal leans into that dark, theatrical, sometimes childish satanic aesthetic. What defines black metal, though, is the vocal style—that signature harsh, shrieking sound.
Jacobsen: Do you remember Dune? I think it was Dune: Part Two, the newest one. They had that one singer… That’s what I think of when I hear black metal. In the movie, they created this ultra-efficient language by removing parts of speech, and the singing is almost a projection of that. The character is technically speaking actual words, just in a very condensed manner.
Fjeldheim: Yes! That’s a great way to describe it. Very cool. And I think, in Norway, where everything’s kind of… fine, we need something like black metal. Sure, you can have a bad time, or even have bad parents, but generally, people are okay. The government looks after you. There’s always a support system. There aren’t that many big existential problems. So we need something to balance that positivity. Black metal is our dark side—it levels things out.
Additionally, Norway has only a few cities. Most people live out in the countryside, and that’s where black metal comes from. That’s the real origin. Even my brother used to be the lead singer in a black metal band. It’s everywhere. When I was growing up, it was a very binary choice—you were either into Metallica or Megadeth. That was the division. And yeah, Metallica was better before the crash. Ride the Lightning? Still the best.
Jacobsen: That might be the quote right there—”Ride the Lightning.” Awesome. Nina, thank you. Thank you very much for your time today. I appreciate you taking the time for this. Okay. Well, thank you again for your time today. I appreciate it. I will be in touch. Thank you again.
Fjeldheim: Of course. Alright—enjoy your 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): 2025/08/30
Scott Douglas Jacobsen interviews Peter Dankwa, a Ghanaian humanist and creative professional, about his experience at the 2025 Humanists International General Assembly and Conference in Luxembourg. Dankwa highlights the diverse presentations, including projects on science advocacy, storytelling, and humanist mentorship. He shares how meeting global delegates, from Bob Reuter of AHA Luxembourg to Darlene of Humanists Barbados, enriched his perspective. Dankwa also emphasizes challenges with visa accessibility for African participants and proposes a membership ID system to strengthen international participation. Jacobsen, a Canadian writer and interviewer, reflects on the importance of conferences in building cross-cultural connections and sustaining the humanist movement.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So today, once again, we are here with the wonderful and talented Peter Dankwa. We are going to be talking about Luxembourg. What was your biggest takeaway from that excellent conference, co-hosted by Humanists International and AHA Luxembourg Humanists under the wonderful reception of Bob Reuter?
Peter Dankwa: Thank you for having me, Scott. It was exciting meeting you in person. Luxembourg 2025 was a beautiful experience. At this year’s Humanists International General Assembly and Conference in Luxembourg, the takeaway was enormous for me—not just because of the conference theme, From Awareness to Action: Strengthening Open Societies through Scientific Literacy, which focused on advocating for science and its application in society, but also because of the variety of topics handled by the speakers. They reminded us that there are different facets of society we need to harmonize to ensure science-based education is accessible and practicable, highlighting the importance of everyone’s work, from the lab to the streets.
All who took the stage to present their project offered something valuable—something practical you could learn from and apply. It brought to light the challenges people face in different parts of the world but, most importantly, the progress humanists are making in advocating science-based education. I loved the science calendar project presented by Monika, and I also enjoyed David’s project – Science in a Box: Hands-On Learning in the Guatemalan Highlands; honestly, everything came together beautifully.
I believe that these initiatives are sustainable and much needed in a time where there is inordinate misinformation.
Jacobsen: Who else was it your first time meeting in person, even though you’d known and communicated with them for several months—or even years—like me?
Dankwa: Leon Langdon, the Advocacy Officer.
Jacobsen: Oh, Leon! Isn’t he tall?
Dankwa: A really tall man—it’s fantastic. It makes you feel like you’re in a different world.
It was also lovely meeting Jean, as I usually only know staff and board members by name when sharing publications or announcements. This time, I got to meet some of the new people in person, which was really wonderful. I also met some great new friends, like Darlene, the President of Humanists Barbados, Diego Vargas of Columbia, François, Nicole, Raquel, Andres and many more.
My favourite time after the conference was exploring Luxembour with AJ Surin and Darlene.
Jacobsen: What about the presentations that really struck you?
Dankwa: All the presentations were excellent—very detailed and thought-provoking. You could tell from the flurry of questions and contributions during the Q&A session. I’ll admit that as a creative person, Boris’s presentation about storytelling and bringing humanism to life through stories struck a chord with me. Humanism has beautiful things that need to be shared – and what easier way to do that than through storytelling?
Also on the Enlightenment, there were different nuances in there that the presenter, Christian Meyers—if I got the name right—was able to bring to light. Dr. Leo’s contribution during the Q&A session challenged me to think about the future of Enlightenment, which should not always be about focusing on its past but about bringing the past and present together to forge the way forward.
How can I forget the presentations made to Andrew Copson on the last day of his tenure as president of Humanists International? There were so many memories being shared that the room was electrified with sweet emotions. Dr. Leo managed to have all of us in tears with his presentation to Andrew.
Andrew truly left his mark. A testament to the fruits of mentorship in Humanists International.
Jacobsen: What would you like to see in terms of accessibility for everyone to be able to attend? I believe there were over 50 countries represented, which is significant for any conference by any metric, but, of course, there’s always room for improvement. No one ever achieves 100 per cent anything in the real world. What do you think could be improved in terms of global accessibility? It’s often mentioned, for example, that visas are a necessity for many African delegates travelling to European countries, but even with funding, the visa is not always guaranteed. What are your thoughts on that?
Dankwa: That’s an important aspect of the whole organization. It might surprise you to know that my first visa application was denied, and I had to reapply with the timely support of Bob Reuter and Javan. Would you believe I received my visa just a day before my flight to Luxembourg? So I didn’t know my fate until the last moment. The experience was frustratingly daunting, aside the costly fact that most denied visa applications are non-refundable. In total, African countries lost 60 million euros in rejected Schengen visa fees in 2024, according to LAGO Collective.
The process has always been very stringent, discouraging many Africans from even harbouring the intention to apply. Some of them have been denied in the past, completely demotivating them from putting in future applications.
I believe introducing a membership ID system for individuals in member organisations can enhance the organization’s database. This could give credence to our membership and its management.
The practice is that you need to present an invitation letter from your local organization, another from Humanists International, and one from the host organization. But I believe if an individual’s unique membership ID were also quoted in the invitation letters, it would provide strong credibility. If you are part of an organization, there should be some form of ID showing that you are a member—not just by word of mouth or on a piece of paper. A membership ID would strengthen that case.
That’s something I’ve been thinking about, and I even shared it with my mentor Roslyn Mould, Vice President of Humanists International.
Perhaps we should also consider this, given our current global, digitalized world. These kinds of things are important for archiving information. For example, we could even have a database on the website where, if you wanted to find out more about a member, the membership ID could serve as the key. I think that would make life easier both for the organization and for members.
Jacobsen: You mentioned that the organization was done well. What about the structure of the conference itself—presentations, coffee breaks, panel, lunch breaks, and so on? Do you think that helped keep everyone focused, so they didn’t get foggy-headed, and also encouraged people to meet and talk with new people? Or would you have done it differently?
Dankwa: I think I’d be tempted to crave this format again, whether next year in Canada or at future conferences, because the breaks were well interwoven at this year’s conference. You didn’t get bored from sitting since the presentations were mostly lively, and during coffee break, the high-table-without-chair arrangement naturally encouraged you to move around and interact with other delegates.
The structure of presentations also worked well, almost like a buildup—moving from one interesting topic subject to another exciting one, unveiling different layers of the conference theme.
And oh! Luxembourg! Luxembourg! Luxembourg!
Just when I was enraptured with Singapore’s easily accessible and digitized transport system, Luxembourg knocked me off my feet with their even free public transportation.
Jacobsen: That’s a great point. I think Luxembourg might actually be the first country in the world to make all public transport—buses, trains, and trams—completely free. That’s an excellent example of how national infrastructure investment can make life easier for everyone. And it was so well organized; nothing felt half-done.
Dankwa: Yes, very well organized. The locals were friendly, evident in the country’s rich multicultural landscape. For a polyglot like myself, hearing Dutch, German, French, and English all around was just a beautiful sight to behold.
Jacobsen: What did you think about the weather in Luxembourg compared with Ghana?
Dankwa: Ghana is hot, so I embraced Luxembourg’s chilliness. At first, I doubted my prowess to manage the cold. But for some reason, knowing I would only be there for a few days, I resolved to enjoy the weather, knowing Ghana’s sun awaited me with fiery arms.
Dankwa: In fact, when Darlene, AJ and I went into town to explore, I was actually in shorts while everyone else was in pants and long sleeves. That particular day, it was cold, but I decided to go out in my short-sleeved shirt. I even let the rain beat me for a while because I knew I wouldn’t get to enjoy that kind of weather again anytime soon. I just let my inner child out and enjoyed it.
Jacobsen: Are you thinking of doing any presentations at the next conference?
Dankwa: Yes, definitely. I was hoping to have done one this time, like I did in Singapore, but I think the arrangement was different this time.
I’m sure delegates would have embraced the opportunity to share a few words or their talent. That kind that brings out interesting yet relatable stories. And it helps with networking as you finally put faces to names you might have once had correspondences with through online chats.
For example, Scott, the countless interviews you do with people—before, during and after conferences—live on in the organization, even when you aren’t physically present. That shows encourages me that if I believe something’s valuable and useful, I should share it.
I’ve already begun drafting a few ideas for Canada. I will also talk with Martin to see what we can do for Canada. Hopefully, I’ll prepare something memorable for everyone to take home. I won’t say what it is yet—it should be a surprise if it comes through.
Jacobsen: What was your favourite piece of Luxembourgish culture or food, or perhaps a quote from someone you met there?
Dankwa: That would be the diverse landscape. The country’s scenery is fantastic—you have hills, valleys, and very picturesque views. There are vintage, Italianate-style buildings, but also modern high-rises. You see almost everything in one place.
My preconceptions about Luxembourg were from the castellated buildings I see in photos, but exploring the city, I was enthralled in the diverse landscape. It was as though it had every landscape in the world.
Jacobsen: Thank you very much for your time today, Peter.
Dankwa: Let me also ask—what was your big moment in Luxembourg?
Jacobsen: Oh, yes. If you’re going to walk everywhere, be ready for some cardio! But honestly, I just love seeing everyone every year. That’s what I really like. I want to go to every single conference I can because, for me, it’s always the highlight of the year.
It’s about engaging with different cultures, meeting new people, reconnecting with familiar faces, and of course, having the chance to do interviews and share stories. There’s just a different energy at these gatherings that I don’t get anywhere else. I really love that.
Dankwa: And kudos on your nomination as well. I think it’s a step in the right direction. You can even accomplish a lot more with your efforts to make the works of humanism accessible to all once you’re on the board. Good luck, as always.
Jacobsen: Thank you—and thank you as well to the Ghanaians, the Nigerians, and the Filipinos for supporting me to get there.
Dankwa: Sure, sure. Alright then—thank you so much.
Jacobsen: Thank you. Take care. Bye-bye.
Dankwa: 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): 2025/08/29
Taylor Goucher is the Vice President of Sales & Marketing at Connext Global, a leading provider of global workforce solutions. With expertise in workforce strategy, AI-driven transformation, and organizational agility, Taylor helps companies optimize operations while maintaining human-centered approaches to productivity. His thought leadership addresses the hidden risks of AI adoption, corporate restructuring, and employee well-being in an era of rapid technological change. By guiding businesses through automation, outsourcing, and evolving job market demands, Taylor provides actionable insights on balancing efficiency with resilience. He is a trusted voice on the future of work, global talent management, and sustainable growth.
Goucher explains how AI restructures work without eliminating labor, elevating human oversight and specialist roles. He links layoffs to investor expectations and governance. Agility requires clear KPIs. Outsourcing augments expertise. Competitive workers build context and digital fluency. Resilience blends automation with compliance, cybersecurity, redundancy, and culture.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How are AI and automation reshaping workforce restructuring?
Taylor Goucher: We don’t believe AI is eliminating labor explicitly, but it’s reshaping the structure of work. Human oversight is still required as most AI tools today only automate 70–90% of a process.
What we’re seeing is a surge of new roles that act as a bridge between automation and quality control. Instead of large front-line teams, organizations are building groups of specialists who validate AI outputs and handle exceptions.
Workforce restructuring is less about cutting people and more focused on redeploying them into roles that make automation reliable.
Jacobsen: What underlying technology business pressures drive layoffs despite strong financial performance?
Goucher: Layoffs aren’t always about shrinking revenue. They’re, more often than we’re willing to accept, about investor expectations in a tech-driven market. Boards see automation, AI and global labor platforms making it possible to ‘do more with less,’ and pressure leaders to show those efficiency gains.
At the same time, fast growth through independent contractors creates compliance and security risks that simply don’t scale. So even when companies are profitable, they restructure, sometimes cutting jobs, to meet governance standards, reduce exposure and prove they’re building a resilient, efficient business for the long term.
Jacobsen: How can organizations maintain agility while implementing large-scale workforce transformation?
Goucher: One thing I’m confident in is that agility comes from clarity.
Companies usually blame remote work or outsourcing for performance issues, when the real gap is unclear KPIs. Regardless of if someone is based in Manila, Bogotá or New York, if you have clear metrics, feedback loops and accountability, you can pivot fast.
Agility also comes from a leadership mindset. Leaders who embrace flexibility and see global talent as an asset, not a compromise, create organizations that can adapt as the market shifts.
Jacobsen: How is global outsourcing redefining back-office roles?
Goucher: Outsourcing today is about augmentation, not replacement, and we see it daily.
Most of our clients are expanding their U.S. and global teams in parallel. Offshore teams are no longer just handling transactional work; they’re stepping into high-skill roles like FP&A, compliance, IT development and project management.
Back-office functions are evolving into globally distributed centers of expertise. Everything is set to help companies grow faster and smarter.
Jacobsen: What skills will be most in demand as technologies disrupt traditional jobs?
Goucher: Two skills stand out in today’s tech driven world: context and digital fluency.
You can teach someone software, but you can’t easily teach lived experience. For example, offshore staff handling U.S. airline customers may never have been on a plane, so companies must train that context.
The most valuable employees combine critical thinking, cultural awareness and comfort with AI-driven tools. Cross-cultural collaboration and continuous training, especially around digital literacy and data, will be the currencies of the future job market.
Jacobsen: During these periods, how should companies address employee morale and communication challenges?
Goucher: The biggest mistake is treating offshore or remote teams as second-class.
High-performing companies give the same bonuses, recognition and even holiday gifts to global employees as they do locally. That builds loyalty and culture across borders.
Morale also heavily depends on managers equipped with the right training. They need to understand cultural norms, communication styles and how feedback is received differently across the globe.
Culture isn’t tied to geography; it’s tied to how intentionally you lead.
Jacobsen: How can workers remain competitive?
Goucher: Workers can remain competitive and find new job security by working on their adaptability.
Employees need to lean into problem-solving, cross-cultural collaboration and tech fluency. These skills keep them in the workflow even as automation scales. Continuous upskilling is critical. The most competitive workers aren’t trying to outcompete AI, they’re learning how to work alongside it and bring human judgment, creativity and adaptability into the loop.
Jacobsen: How can leaders balance automation with long-term organization resilience?
Goucher: Resilience comes from balance. Every AI-driven business still needs people as a safety net when automation fails.
Leaders who only chase short-term cost savings risk creating brittle systems. The right approach is blending automation with human oversight, while also building resilience into compliance, cybersecurity and redundancy. That way, you gain efficiency today but also protect your business when systems inevitably break down.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Taylor.
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): 2025/08/28
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 discuss the Justice Department’s release of Ghislaine Maxwell’s interview transcripts, which detailed her cooperation but left grand jury records sealed. They highlight ongoing questions about Epstein’s network, victim silence, and unresolved financial angles, including possible Russian bank links. The conversation shifts to Trump’s National Guard deployment in D.C., which critics say focuses on optics over crime reduction, and to Joe Gruters’ election as RNC chair, underscoring Trump’s grip on the GOP. Finally, they examine U.S. diplomacy in Africa, Rwanda-DRC tensions, and Nvidia’s controversial AI chip sales deal with China under Trump’s revenue-sharing arrangement.
Interview conducted August 22, 2025.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, once more, we are here with the wonderful Irina Tsukerman. The U.S. Justice Department has now released the full transcript and audio recordings of a two-day interview with Ghislaine Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein’s once–associate and convicted sex offender. Any thoughts?
Irina Tsukerman: The interview was conducted on July 24 and 25 by Donald Trump’s lead criminal defense attorney in his New York cases, Todd Blanche. Victim names were redacted, but aside from that, the content remains unaltered. Maxwell cooperated extensively, answering questions about roughly 100 individuals. Shortly after the interview, she was transferred from a low-security prison in Florida to a minimum-security federal prison camp in Bryan, Texas.
Meanwhile, a U.S. federal judge in New York, Richard Berman, rejected the Justice Department’s request to unseal grand jury transcripts from Epstein’s 2019 case, reaffirming the need to uphold grand jury secrecy rules. Another judge in Maxwell’s case, Paul Engelmayer, similarly denied such a request, stating the materials would not shed any meaningful new light on the crimes or their investigations. The judges criticized the move as potentially a diversion from releasing the substantial investigative records the DOJ already holds—estimated at around 100,000 pages.
So, yes—this is interesting. The House Oversight Committee is preparing to receive and review redacted versions of the DOJ files related to Epstein and Maxwell—but no specific public release timeline has been announced.
It remains unclear what—or whom—the grand jury secrecy is protecting, especially since Maxwell is already convicted and serving a 20-year sentence. The reluctance to release those transcripts, despite the interview’s disclosure, is puzzling.
As someone quipped, handing those files to someone like Pete Hegseth—known for his ‘judicious handling’ of information—might be the fastest path to clarity. But more seriously, the once-heated “Epstein-gate” seems to have faded from the spotlight as coverage shifts to matters like diplomacy and law enforcement actions in major cities. Still, the core questions remain as relevant as ever.
Who supplied those women to Epstein? Which parts of the trafficking network went unpunished? Even if Epstein and Maxwell operated as lone actors, a supply chain likely facilitated their crimes. If not Epstein’s network, then indisputably someone else profited. That does not remain comforting, regardless of political affiliation or administration.
To dismiss this as a “non-story,” while ignoring the harrowing experiences of victims, feels particularly callous. Just because some survivors accepted settlements to remain silent—even sealed ones—that doesn’t invalidate their accounts; it certainly doesn’t protect anyone involved. Now that Epstein is dead, the rationale for shielding others is even less credible.
Moreover, some of these survivors might be willing to speak out again—about individuals who weren’t party to nondisclosure agreements and whose actions may still be unexamined.
It’s also worth noting that Maxwell’s move to a minimum-security prison has ignited public indignation. Victim advocates describe the facility as overly comfortable—a “country-club” or “Club Fed” scenario—and argue that such leniency appears inexplicable for a convicted sex trafficker. The transfer came just after her interview with Blanche, fueling speculation about cooperation in exchange for softer conditions.
Maxwell claims that Donald Trump was never inappropriate with anyone she knew; she may have met him once around 1990, due to her father’s connection with Trump’s then-wife, Ivana—but the interview contained no incriminating information about him or any so-called “client list.”
That may well be true. Trump likely wouldn’t act illegally without ensuring privacy for himself. But presence alone—or proximity—can raise ethical questions. Importantly, there may still be individuals who were complicit—and whose actions may yet warrant scrutiny. All of these remain deeply newsworthy.
They are worthy of exploration. The financial angle of all of this remains unclear. I am curious whether any of these transcripts will shed light on the use of Russian banks in Epstein’s finances. Epstein and his circle’s links to foreign malign influence are as relevant as anything else in the story. The potential money laundering and other financial improprieties are just as worthy of examination as the sex trafficking and scandalous gossip.
Jacobsen: The National Guard now has troops on the streets of D.C. This is part of Trump’s crackdown. They are going to start carrying weapons. There has been no specification of the particular weapons. So, it could be regular law enforcement arms, or it could be military-grade. The order refers to “service-issued weapons.” Any thoughts?
Tsukerman: I am actually surprised that they have not been armed already. What is the point of deploying them if they cannot carry weapons? Without them, they have even less legitimacy. Then again, it raises a larger question: if you are there to intimidate people, that is not a legitimate use of law enforcement. If you are there to make arrests, then you should be armed and prepared to do so.
Now, regardless of the weapons issue, the broader fact is that even conservatives agree this deployment has not been effective against crime in D.C. The forces are not operating in the neighbourhoods with the highest crime rates. Instead, they are walking around in large groups through areas like Georgetown, which is already wealthy, safe, and ritzy.
If the idea is to make affluent residents feel secure, then mission accomplished. But if the idea is to fight crime in poorer, more distressed areas, the operation has failed. Even after criticism, they have not sent forces into the city’s peripheral, high-crime neighbourhoods.
I do not know the timeline for expanding this to Chicago and New York, but I expect the National Guard, FBI, and others will operate in much the same way—focusing on a few visible areas that generate media coverage rather than going where additional law enforcement is actually needed.
Ironically, in response to all of this, municipal authorities—rather than demonstrating that they can manage their own cities without federal intervention—have failed to act quickly to secure more resources and more municipal police on the ground. That could have deterred Trump from what many see as executive overreach.
He even staged a PR stunt by going out on patrol last night. Obviously, Trump himself was not going to make any arrests. Perhaps Trump should have been working on something more serious, given all the other problems facing the country. But many in the pro-Trump media and political circles are showing support, using a strawman argument: that statistics on crime in D.C. are “not accurate,” that there is rampant crime, and that the local mayor has done nothing about it.
I don’t think anyone ever claimed D.C. has no crime, or even minor crime. It’s accurate that the rate of violent crime has fallen substantially over the past two to three decades. That does not mean there isn’t still work to be done, or that the local authorities are handling it in the best possible way.
There’s also a conflation of issues. Violent crime, property crime, petty theft, the proliferation of homeless encampments, and visible drug use all get lumped together. However, there’s often a lack of clear distinction between actual crime incidents, unpleasant optics that may indirectly contribute to crime, and whether there is genuine danger to residents.
The irony, of course, is that Trump himself is a convicted felon, and he has pardoned many criminals—some of them not remotely “victimless.” He has even floated pardons for sex offenders. So I’m not convinced that his judgment on criminal justice carries much weight. At best, what he’s doing looks like virtue signalling to his base.
The Justice Department recently boasted of “100 arrests” in one night. But arrests don’t equal prosecutions, and prosecutions don’t equal convictions. If those arrests were carried out improperly, they could actually damage law enforcement’s credibility. So these numbers are not enough to celebrate. They could be, but the outcome remains unclear.
If the aim is intimidation and to look “tough,” that is not a deterrent for criminals. It’s a deterrent for tourists, business owners, and anyone uneasy about the optics of police-state tactics—military vehicles outside Union Station, for example.
Jacobsen: The new RNC chairman, Joe Gruters, is a longtime Trump loyalist. His background dates back to Trump’s era as a reality TV celebrity, and now, as party chairman, he was elected without opposition. He does not have any record of challenging Trump in any meaningful way. So, whether he’s a true believer or simply a sincere supporter, the outcome is the same: unquestioned loyalty.
Tsukerman: It’s the surprising political news of the day—though perhaps not too surprising given that Trump, as president, is already the de facto leader of the Republican Party. As such, Trump will almost certainly appoint—or encourage the appointment of—people to the top levels of the party apparatus who align with his agenda and persona.
The problem is that he exerts such control over the party that there are virtually no objections to anything he does—appointments, agenda, implementation. This means that even if he were to lose the presidency through impeachment or leave office at term’s end, he would likely continue to wield influence over the GOP.
Consequently, it will be tough for anyone without his explicit approval to win the Republican nomination and challenge his hold on the party. Trump is not just consolidating compliance while in office—that’s pretty normal—he’s ensuring continuity of his political legacy long after his presidency, while sidelining other Republicans with differing views who might need resources and a platform to run.
He intends to continue influencing the nomination process well beyond 2025—through 2028 and beyond—which doesn’t bode well for the party’s chances in general elections. If the GOP primary winner is always someone like J.D. Vance—someone extremely close to Trump—and if Democrats avoid their past mistakes and field a reasonable, broadly appealing candidate, Trump-aligned nominees may win primaries but lose general elections. This is a structural long-term issue Republicans should address now.
Unfortunately, many are either deluded—believing Trump and his circle are far more popular than they are—or overly optimistic that Democrats will continue to falter. It’s turning into a race to the bottom where Republicans only need to be slightly less terrible. That’s not good for the country.
Jacobsen: On the global front, a lot is happening in Africa. The Nigerien army reportedly killed a senior Boko Haram leader, Ibrahim Bakoura, in a targeted airstrike in the Lake Chad region on August 15, though analysts urge caution as Bakoura has been reported dead multiple times before. Meanwhile, Uganda’s military has been active in Darfur pursuing over 1,200 suspects, and the Rwandan rebel group M23 has denied involvement in massacres in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
Tsukerman: It’s a troubling surge of violence, which unfortunately isn’t surprising given that Western powers—once heavily involved in regional security—have mostly withdrawn or lost influence. The U.S. has attempted to strike deals with West African governments for access to raw materials and critical minerals, but those negotiations haven’t produced meaningful results yet. The situation in Sudan remains dire, and global attention is understandably focused on Gaza and the Russia–Ukraine conflict, meaning places like Sudan and the Sahel are undercovered, even as sanctions hit top leadership figures there.
However, there is no precise enforcement mechanism for physically resolving the conflict, particularly given the numerous state and non-state entities supplying weapons to both sides, which ensures neither side can fully prevail. There is an entrenchment of sectarian concerns, which provides warring factions with local and logistical bases of support and contributes to the continuity of the war. There are no third options or better alternatives. Even diplomacy—pushed initially by Saudi Arabia—has faded into the background.
Most Middle Eastern and North African leaders’ meetings this week have focused on Gaza, not Sudan. Politically, that makes sense.
The Palestinian issue has been central in regional politics and media for decades, making it difficult to refocus attention elsewhere. It’s also an effective way to mobilize specific populations and distract from economic crises and domestic political troubles. For example, in Saudi Arabia, there was recently a massive leak of sensitive material from its external intelligence agency—an entire data dump posted online. It’s not surprising the government would want public focus shifted toward a highly emotive issue like Gaza.
Sudan has not been “weaponized” in the same way Gaza has. It lacks the same historical resonance across the Arab world, so it does not automatically appear on the regional agenda. As a result, there is little unique or sustained backing to pressure Sudan’s warlords into compliance with international norms, or to prioritize humanitarian relief for civilians.
Regarding Rwanda and the rebels, despite all the talk, there still has not been conclusive evidence of direct coordination between the Rwandan government and M23. If such a connection is clear, why has it not been proven unequivocally? And if it is not, who benefits from undermining Rwanda? The obvious answer is the DRC, which has every reason to amplify allegations of Rwandan involvement, given their rivalry over regional influence and resources. Rwanda is considered a Western ally, whereas the DRC is now backed mainly by Russia.
Tsukerman: That’s not to say there aren’t factions inside Rwanda’s government with ties to rebels, but the situation is far less clear-cut than alleged. Western media often fails to probe deeply, repeating accusations without substantial evidence, which muddies understanding.
For now, the U.S. has attempted to prevent open war between Rwanda and the DRC and has, to a degree, frozen escalation. But with the core issues unresolved—rebel activity, resource control, and geopolitical rivalries—the risk of renewed conflict remains high.
What Trump’s brand of diplomacy seems designed to deliver is immediate, tactical achievements—preventing significant conflict flares and presenting the optics of negotiation—rather than doing the painstaking work of long-term, substantive diplomacy to resolve underlying tensions, whether in Africa or elsewhere. So, I’m not expecting lasting resolutions any time soon.
Jacobsen: Now, on a different front: we’re living in an almost “Blade Runner–esque” corporate world, where massive multinationals rival states in influence. Take Nvidia’s role in the U.S.–China tech calculus. According to the Associated Press, Nvidia’s CEO Jensen Huang has been in talks with the Trump administration about a new AI chip—the so‑called “B30A,” based on the Blackwell architecture—designed for the Chinese market. It’s intended to be weaker than the B300 but still powerful enough for data centers.
Tsukerman: It sounds paradoxical—but it’s standard in geopolitics today. Multinational corporations aim to maximize profits, even in contentious markets. They’ll maintain working relationships with governments, even adversarial ones, to access those customers.
That said, the sensitive nature of chip technology makes governments act. The U.S. is adopting a mix of restrictions and controlled access, trying to safeguard national security without completely shutting off lucrative markets. China, on the other hand, uses its rare-earth dominance as leverage, slowing Western innovation.
But here’s where things get tricky—according to Reuters and AP, Nvidia and AMD agreed to share 15% of their revenue from chip sales to China with the U.S. government to secure export licenses for the chips. That was a massive reversal of prior export curbs.
Others labelled that arrangement an unprecedented “tax” or “quid pro quo,” raising questions about where national security stops and revenue-generation begins. Nvidia reportedly could generate up to $50 billion from AI chip sales to China—so a 15% cut is no small clause; it’s a substantial federal revenue stream.
Why is the U.S. essentially “arming the adversary,” even if mostly symbolically? Some believe Trump himself struck a deal to take a personal cut of these sales—but there’s no credible evidence supporting that claim. It appears more like a political exaggeration.
It’s a deliberate blend of national-interest calculus and private-sector pragmatism—corporations push for access, governments demand oversight, and power balances shift accordingly. The next step in this paradigm seems to be creating chips that give China just enough capability to remain competitive, while limiting interoperability with Western systems and slowing progress toward the most advanced versions. It’s essentially a halfway measure: not cutting China off, but not letting it advance unchecked either.
But this looks like a corrupt deal undercutting U.S. national security. Previously, the goal was to deny China access to sensitive technology. Now, with this revenue-sharing arrangement, Trump benefits financially through cozy deals. Where that money ultimately goes is unclear. What we do know is that the U.S. government still carries about $35 trillion in debt, and nothing from these export taxes has gone toward debt reduction. The ceiling keeps getting raised to keep essential agencies operating.
So, the new revenue isn’t going toward debt relief. It’s going to contractors, programs, or disappearing into mechanisms with little transparency. Long term, it’s self-defeating. Nvidia is pleased because it no longer faces constraints and can expand globally. But from a national security perspective, it’s disastrous. It undercuts Trump’s own rhetoric about China as an economic and security rival.
There has been some criticism from within the Republican Party, but nowhere near enough. The bigger question is when Congress and party leadership will ask themselves how far they’re willing to go to satisfy Trump’s personal whims, instead of pursuing a coherent presidential agenda.
Jacobsen: Thank you very much, Irina.
Tsukerman: 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): 2025/08/27
Riane Tennenhaus Eisler (born July 22, 1931, Vienna) is an Austrian-born American social systems scientist, cultural historian, futurist, attorney, and author. As a child she fled Nazi-occupied Austria with her parents in 1939, lived seven years in Havana’s industrial slums, and later emigrated to the United States; she went on to earn a B.A. (magna cum laude) and J.D. from UCLA. Eisler is best known for The Chalice and the Blade (1987), which introduced her “domination vs. partnership” framework for analyzing social systems; later works include The Real Wealth of Nations(2007) and, with Douglas P. Fry, Nurturing Our Humanity (2019). She founded (in 1987) what is now the Center for Partnership Systems and serves as Editor-in-Chief of the Interdisciplinary Journal of Partnership Studies at the University of Minnesota.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen interviews Riane Eisler on how her Holocaust-era childhood shaped her systemic analysis of antisemitism, Zionism, and today’s conflicts. Eisler recounts fleeing Nazi-occupied Austria, diaspora trauma, and the evolution of Judaism, situating Zionism within centuries of persecution. She argues Israel’s garrison posture stems from out-group hostility and urges a shift from domination to partnership. Drawing on gender, childhood, economics, and story, Eisler highlights Nordic policies that reward caring and refute genetic tribalism. She calls for mutual acceptance, honesty, and public policies valuing people and planet, framing the core struggle as partnership versus domination across cultures, ideologies, and eras.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So today, we are here once again with the distinguished Riane Eisler. We will be discussing a topic that is both personally significant to me and connected to my past research. I will give a brief background.
My Dutch grandfather, who passed away long before I was born, was part of the Dutch resistance for six years. They were later recognized for harbouring at least one Jewish couple for a year or more during World War II. My family eventually moved to Ontario, Canada—in effect, fleeing the Nazi occupation, as far as I know.
During an internship I undertook, one of our projects involved contacting Holocaust remembrance organizations. We worked to locate survivors to help preserve their stories and ensure that this history is not lost. In a sense, I see today’s conversation as a continuation of that work, on a more personal level.
So, about the Holocaust, antisemitism, and Zionism—what is your history?
Riane Eisler: My life and the trajectory it took were profoundly shaped by the Anschluss—the Nazi annexation of Austria in March 1938, which the Austrian government and much of the population welcomed. I have often felt more comfortable travelling to Germany than to Austria, because the Germans, as a nation, formally acknowledged and took responsibility for their role in the Holocaust. At the same time, Austria long promoted the “first victim” narrative. It did not fully confront its complicity until much later. That is a profound difference.
My life, as I have told you before, has been like the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle slowly coming together. The first critical piece—one that shaped my systemic, whole-systems analysis of society—was escaping Nazi-occupied Austria with my parents when I was a child.
Overnight, our lives changed. After Kristallnacht in November 1938, we became targets, essentially hunted. A gang of Gestapo agents arrested my father. My mother recognized one of them as a young Austrian Nazi who had once been an errand boy for her family’s business. In an extraordinary act of courage, she demanded my father’s release. She reminded the man of the kindness my father had shown him in the past. Incredibly, he relented, and my father was freed. We were able to flee first to Cuba and later to the United States.
I grew up in Cuba, where Nazi propaganda had fueled antisemitic campaigns. In my work, I have often analyzed in-group versus out-group dynamics, and Jews have historically been, in European and global history, the prototypical out-group, blamed for economic, political, and social problems. For many years, I suppressed the traumas of my childhood.
Eventually, after my divorce from my first husband, I reconnected more strongly with my Jewish identity and began to confront the Holocaust directly. I returned to Austria. I visited Dachau, one of the first Nazi concentration camps in Germany, and a place where I might have been imprisoned and killed had we not escaped. I stayed in Vienna’s Hotel Imperial, where Hitler had once stayed—a symbolic act, my youthful attempt to demonstrate that he had not won.
It was, in some ways, like what Viktor Frankl described in Man’s Search for Meaning. I did things I could not have done earlier: visiting Dachau, studying European history in depth, and tracing the historical roots of Zionism.
It is a sad history, because the Jews, as I have said, were—and in many places still are—the prototypical out-group, the scapegoat for whatever is perceived to be wrong in the world. Zionism emerged from that terrible history.
To understand it, you have to go far back, and I did. Those who know my research—particularly my most famous book, The Chalice and the Blade: Our History, Our Future—see that I examined our prehistory, long before there was such a thing as an ancient Jewish state.
If you consider the expulsion of the Jews from what is today Israel and Palestine, it took place during a time when there were numerous city-states and kingdoms, each with its religion. When the Jews were expelled, they took their religion with them, and it changed over time. The Judaism I was brought up with bore no resemblance to specific Old Testament passages advocating revenge, such as “an eye for an eye” or “a tooth for a tooth.” It had evolved in the diaspora.
That diaspora, however, was often disastrous. Take Spain, for example. Jews were prominent there, as they were in Morocco and many other regions under Muslim rule. However, at specific points, they became the out-group and the scapegoat once again. In Spain, they were expelled unless they converted to Christianity during the Inquisition.
Historically, in many societies—including medieval Europe—Jews were the only group permitted to lend money at interest. This role was both necessary and dangerous. Nobility across medieval Europe owed large sums to Jewish moneylenders, and one way they “repaid” the debt was by expelling or killing the Jews who had lent them the money. Pogroms and expulsions occurred repeatedly, stretching far back in history.
Zionism arose from this centuries-long pattern of persecution. The idea was: we Jews are a wandering people, like the Roma—another historically persecuted out-group—so we must have a state of our own. The most logical place was where Jewish history began: the land that is today Israel and Palestine.
Theodor Herzl, often considered the father of modern political Zionism, advanced the idea of a Jewish homeland. Over time, Jewish settlers established communities there. Eventually, the land that was essentially desert in many regions was transformed into a modern state.
I was brought up with the idea that Jews must help one another, because no one else would. After World War II, when I was 12 years old, I saw the newsreels of the concentration camps. The God I had been taught to believe in died for me in that moment. I could not understand how a deity could allow such horrors.
Jacobsen: There is a famous phrase—one of the most impactful I have ever read—which says, “If there is a God, you will have to ask my forgiveness.”
Eisler: I have written extensively about prehistory, before what I call the domination system emerged. That system was not invented by the men who wrote the Old Testament; it arose in prehistory with the invasions of Indo-European tribes—the very tribes Hitler so considerably idealized. However, that is another discussion, and we are covering it in our series of interviews on the partnership–domination social scale, for which I am known.
Israel came into existence despite the British. I say “despite” because, when the British left, they turned over many of the so-called police stations to Arab forces and carried their legacy of antisemitism. Antisemitism is ancient, and it is embedded in domination-based, in-group versus out-group thinking. For Europeans, Americans, and much of the world, Jews have been the prototypical out-group.
Finally, in 1948—not 1946—Israel became a state. I know people whom the British interned in Cyprus before independence. They disembarked from the boats, were handed weapons, and told they must fight for survival. The moment Israel was declared, all the neighbouring Arab states—Egypt, Transjordan (now Jordan), Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq—sent their armies to destroy it. Israel won that war, but, as the saying goes, “We live in a neighbourhood where we are not wanted.” That remains true.
Over time, because of its security situation, Israel has become a garrison state. This reality arose from the refusal to accept Israel, driven in part by the same in-group versus out-group antisemitism.
Now we face the present. After the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack, Israel sought to eliminate Hamas but has been largely unsuccessful, due in part, I believe, to entrenched antisemitism and in-group/out-group thinking within parts of the Muslim world. I have no simple answers, except to emphasize that there is an alternative: the partnership model. Our choices are not limited to “dominate or be dominated.” The partnership alternative is deeply rooted in the hidden history of our past, which I tell in The Chalice and the Blade.
That was my first book, and I began with gender because gender is a foundational category for equating difference, whether that difference is religious, as with Jews, or racial, as with people of darker skin, with inferiority or superirity. It begins with the two basic human forms: women and men. Of course, there are people in between. Still, they are not recognized in dominant systems, because how could you rank one gender over the other if you acknowledge fluidity? In such systems, rigid gender stereotypes are required; nothing in between is permitted.
Look at the stories of Eve and Pandora: both blame women for no less than all of humanity’s troubles. This is powerful propaganda for domination systems. My first book addressed gender in this context. However, I also want to return to the fact that I am Jewish. I am a secular Jew, obviously, but I am culturally Jewish.
I feel deep sorrow for everyone in Gaza and everyone in Israel. The Israelis know they are hated, and the slogan “From the river to the sea” means precisely what it says—it calls for the elimination of Israel, in effect throwing all the Jews into the sea. I do not have a simple answer, except to say that we must shift from domination to partnership.
My cross-cultural, multidisciplinary, whole-systems research takes into account women, men, children, and families. Remember that the conventional political and cultural categories—right, left, religious, secular, Eastern, Western, Northern, Southern—tend to marginalize nothing less than the majority of humanity: women and children of all genders, including those who are transgender, as we say today.
There is a long tradition of Jews working for social justice. Think of the two Jewish men—Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner—murdered in Mississippi in 1964 while helping to secure civil rights for African Americans. However, there is still antisemitism in some parts of the Black community, and there is propaganda portraying Israelis as colonizers, which is absurd. After the Holocaust, Jews had nowhere else to go. Britain had promised they could return to their historic homeland, so they did—and now they are stuck in a neighbourhood where they are not wanted.
The only way forward is to stop blaming and shaming others for our problems. That is the partnership way, as opposed to the domination way. The fact that so many Jews work for social justice is precisely because we understand oppression firsthand. We have been the targets of antisemitism for centuries.
I have been fortunate in many ways, aside from my early life. Both my parents and I were deeply traumatized by the Holocaust. My parents never spoke about it. They never explained anything to me. That is why I had to do all my research as an adult—they could not face it.
I have no quick fix for these problems, except to say we must move from domination to partnership, and stop equating difference with inferiority. Yes, it begins with gender, but it extends to Jews as the prototypical out-group, and to racism, and all forms of bigotry. All of these “-isms” stem from the idea that you either dominate or are dominated. In domination systems there is no partnership alternative, even though we know there is.
Unfortunately, many people in the Middle East are dominated by their governments—kings, emirs, sheikhs—living under total domination systems. These regimes accept inequality, and so they deflect blame onto Israel. “Everything would be fine if it were not for the Israelis”—that becomes the narrative. I am no fan of Netanyahu, but this is a miserable situation. It is a lose–lose scenario for everyone, rooted in a domination system that always needs an out-group to blame.
That has been the story of my life: trying to find a place where I fit in. In college, I pledged Alpha Epsilon Phi, my Jewish sorority, because I could not join a Christian sorority in the United States at that time. I eventually disaffiliated because I did not want to participate in a system that said, “Because I am an AEPhi, I am better than you are.”
I felt it in my bones. I hope we are at a point now, as a species, where we realize we are threatened not only by climate change but also by nuclear weapons. Suppose an Iranian Ayatollah—someone at the very top—were to acquire and eventually use a nuclear bomb. If he genuinely believes he will be rewarded in heaven with “72 virgins” attending to all his needs, what would hold him back?
I have always wondered: what do women get in that scenario?
Jacobsen: Christopher Hitchens once joked that women in heaven get their husbands back. Another joke I heard imagines God saying to women, “Good news, ladies—you are in heaven. Weird news—you get your husbands back.”
Eisler: In all seriousness, we must shift to partnership—including partnership with our Mother Earth—instead of continuing extraction and exploitation, which have been ongoing for thousands of years. Our technology has become vastly more powerful, and our population has exploded. That is another topic I address in my work, but it still comes down to the same thing: shifting from domination to partnership.
If we can do that, there can be forgiveness for the centuries and millennia of persecution of Jews, and yes, for the horrors in Gaza. However, that can only come with a change in consciousness.
Do I think antisemitism can be given a single, static textbook definition, or should it be defined in the context of an ongoing conversation? Speaking as a victim, as a Jew, I am not sure what it would mean to lock the definition into a fixed form. For me, it always hinges on this in-group versus out-group dynamic—and on the denial of our shared humanity.
Look at economics. Whether under socialism, which in the Soviet Union became state control—the so-called “dictatorship of the proletariat”—or under capitalism, we face domination-based thinking. We may have markets, but they are far from free markets. What we need is government policy—enlightened policy—that rewards caring. Caring is at the crux of all of this.
If I care about the out-group, everything changes. Societies that have shifted toward the partnership model—such as the Nordic nations of Sweden, Finland, and Norway—are less authoritarian, more democratic, and moving toward gender equity. These societies have made caring a cornerstone in both family life and public policy.
They also challenge the claims of certain sociobiologists who insist that we only invest in those to whom we are genetically related. The Nordic countries invest a greater share of their GDP than any other nation in people on the other side of the globe—people to whom they are not genetically related. Of course, we help those closest to us, but in a partnership model, care is extended far beyond that circle.
Who needs science to show that we are interconnected? We know it. However, that is not the point. Everything is still based on the assumption of in-group versus out-group thinking. That assumption is not grounded in reality.
The fact that some physicists won the Nobel Prize in Physics for their work on quantum entanglement at the subatomic level demonstrates our interconnection. It is a fact of physics. It is a fact of biology, tracing back to our mother or father. It is a fact of history. We are all interconnected.
Today, this reality is made evident not only by technologies of communication and transportation, but also by technologies of destruction—nuclear and bacteriological warfare—and even by industrial production and climate change. We are in the post-industrial era, and we need a whole new economic system. More than anything else, we must value caring for people and the planet.
That it is I, a Jew, who has studied all of this is no coincidence. We study it out of empathy for all out-groups. My hope is grounded in empirical evidence—that for millennia, human societies were oriented more toward partnership than domination. It was only in the last five to ten thousand years—a mere blip in the evolution of our species—that we shifted toward domination.
The real struggle for our future is not between right and left, religious and secular, or East and West. Those categories are still rooted in in-group versus out-group thinking. The struggle is between the tremendous movements toward partnership—such as the women’s movement, the anti-racism movement, the fight against antisemitism, and the environmental movement—and the regression to domination we see today. That regression is, in many ways, a reaction to these partnership-oriented movements.
These movements share a coherent framework: gender, childhood and family, economics, story and language. We should be conscious that we, too, have a framework—the partnership framework.
Jacobsen: Since Israel is often described as a “garrison state,” while still maintaining a legitimate vision for a Zionist state, what could shift it from a garrison state to a partnership model? Or is that very difficult, given the situation on all sides?
Eisler: The killing of so many people complicates the situation tremendously. What we are talking about here is a shift in consciousness and a change in how history is told, because in the surrounding Arab states and territories near tiny Israel, the history is not told. They do not recount that when Israel was formed in 1948, all the neighbouring armies invaded and lost; or that they invaded again and again and lost; or that in these conflicts, everybody loses.
People sometimes talk about “paranoia” on both sides, but I would argue that the fear of Israelis is not paranoia. It is grounded in reality. They have been attacked since the inception of the state. They are not wanted. They are hated. They are the out-group. Unless we can move toward mutual acceptance, the cycle will continue.
The more the out-group is excluded, the more it becomes an in-group defined in opposition, prepared to fight. That is a lose–lose scenario. We must shift our consciousness and start afresh—with partnership and with an understanding of our profound interconnection.
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): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/08/07
Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner discuss the 2023 Titan sub disaster, highlighting OceanGate’s unsafe design choices, lack of third-party certification, and CEO Stockton Rush’s disregard for safety warnings. Rosner breaks down the physics of extreme deep-sea pressure and why the fibreglass construction was fatally flawed. The conversation contrasts amateur engineering successes like Adam Carolla’s pool project with OceanGate’s catastrophic failure, stressing the importance of rigorous structural testing when human lives are at stake.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, the Titan sub disaster—in theory, it was preventable, based on a new report.
Rick Rosner: You are talking about that fibreglass submersible that imploded in 2023, right?
Jacobsen: Yes, June 2023. The company was called OceanGate—one word. The report found that their safety culture and engineering practices were deeply flawed. There was inadequate design certification, no third-party validation, and poor maintenance protocols. Now the U.S. Coast Guard is calling for stronger oversight of novel submersibles and unregulated deep-sea vessels. What most people do not understand is how brutally difficult it is to design a craft that can survive three miles under the ocean. The pressure at that depth is immense. Every square foot of the hull is subjected to the equivalent of the weight of a three-mile-high column of water. One cubic foot of water weighs about 60 pounds, so you are looking at nearly 15,000 feet of water above you—15,000 times 60. That is 900,000 pounds of pressure per square foot—almost a million pounds. That pressure is exerted evenly on the entire surface of the vessel: top, bottom, sides, everything.
So, they were trying to hold back almost a million pounds per square foot with layers of fibreglass. To make things worse, the structure was not spherical. A sphere is the best shape to resist uniform external pressure because there are no flat surfaces or edges that can buckle inward. That is why eggs are surprisingly strong for how thin they are—their shape distributes stress evenly. The Titanic, for example, did not collapse when it sank because it had lots of openings—portholes, corridors, gaps—that allowed the water to fill it. However, if you have a sealed, pressurized space filled with people and air, the external pressure wants to crush that hollow space instantly. Moreover, that is what happened.
There were reports that the Titan sub made creaking noises on the way down. As they descended, at 1,000 feet, 2,000 feet, and so on, they heard noises—that was the fibreglass structure shifting. That is a massive red flag. The second you hear structural noises at depth, you should demand to be brought back up. I do not know if they would have made it, but continuing the dive was reckless. Honestly, suppose you are going to build a deep-sea sub. In that case, you should make it spherical, build it out of aluminum or titanium, and make the hull at least several inches thick. I do not know the exact required thickness, but you cannot rely on layered composite materials like fibreglass at those depths.
Rosner: What happened when it imploded?
Jacobsen: Once the hull gave way, water rushed in at supersonic speed—literally in a few milliseconds. The people inside were obliterated instantly. Human bodies are not exactly hollow, but they do contain air-filled cavities—lungs, sinuses, and intestines. Under a million pounds per square foot, all of those are crushed immediately. Once the sub’s interior space was no longer hollow—meaning the water had entirely rushed in—the crushing stopped. The external structure, now filled, fell to the sea floor in pieces. That is why the wreckage was not just a flattened ball—it was broken up but still somewhat recognizable. However, the people inside were vaporized, essentially.
Rosner: And the CEO—Stockton Rush—ignored warnings?
Jacobsen: Yeah, he was a reckless guy. Multiple experts warned him about the sub’s design and materials. He dismissed safety concerns as a barrier to innovation. He cut corners. The engineering was flawed.
Rosner: That reminds me—your friend Adam Carolla does a lot of DIY engineering, right?
Jacobsen: Yeah, Adam’s an amateur engineer. He has taken on some pretty insane home rehab projects. In Los Angeles, there are all sorts of weird old houses, some with major structural issues. He once found a former movie star’s home that had a cantilevered kitchen or family room that was separated from the rest of the house. He loved it because the defect made the house cheaper, and he saw it as an engineering challenge to fix.
I want to build a James Bond-style swimming pool—like one he had built where, on the other side of the pool, there is a bar. The back wall of the bar features portholes that allow you to look through and see people swimming underwater. That was a project Adam Carolla took on. Moreover, this is a guy who, by his description, was a terrible student—an underperformer. However, he was able to design a pool with cement thick enough, glass thick enough, and proper rebar support to make it safe and structurally sound.
Moreover, he managed to convince the building inspectors in Los Angeles, which is wild because they make everything take three years. The LA building code is a foot thick. So the fact that Carolla, with no formal engineering background, did competent amateur engineering and got it approved is astounding. Meanwhile, the OceanGate guy—the one behind the Titan disaster—was not qualified.
So you can be a self-taught engineer and do SolidWorks, but not in this case. Carolla started as a carpenter, but he understood the basics. He calculated the pressure per square foot of the pool walls and engineered it accordingly. That someone like him could pull it off, while the guy building a submersible could not, boggles my mind. Especially when the sub trip was for rich people—tickets cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to ride to the bottom of the ocean. One of the passengers was a billionaire father who reportedly pressured his fearful and hesitant son to come along. The kid was right to be scared. When the hull failed, they died in one-fifth of a second.
When you test something for structural failure, you test it until it breaks. In structural engineering courses, students are often assigned to build bridge models. The goal is to support a set amount of weight using limited materials. Then they test how much weight the design can bear before it collapses. It is the same concept at the gym. When you bench press, you load 45-pound plates—or 20-kilo plates in Canada—onto a bar. Now, let us talk about the pressure on that sub.
If the water pressure was nearly 1 million pounds per square foot, and each gym plate weighs 45 pounds, then 1,000,000 divided by 45 equals over 22,000. So, imagine more than 22,000 plates stacked on one square foot of surface. That is how much water pressure was acting on the sub’s hull, per square foot. You had better be sure your design can hold that.
Jacobsen: Good night. I will talk to you tomorrow.
Rosner: Talk tomorrow?
Jacobsen: Thank you very much. I will get some stuff online tomorrow.
Rosner: Thanks.
Jacobsen: Alright. We are back on track.
Rosner: Thank you.
Jacobsen: Thank you.
Rosner: 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): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/08/07
Rick Rosner critiques Donald Trump’s latest antics, including claims about the 2028 Olympics and deflecting from Epstein inquiries. He questions the credibility of Trump’s partnership with Apple CEO Tim Cook over a $100 billion investment. Rosner analyzes the reported 4.5% drop in U.S. crime rates, attributing it to digitalization, reduced street life, and fewer opportunities for petty crime. He reflects on changes in society, policing, incarceration, and the evolving nature of crime in a cashless, surveilled era.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What else did Trump do recently that was dumb?
Rick Rosner: He said something about “the alliance” coming to Los Angeles in three years—whatever that means. Right now, he is constantly spewing random nonsense because people keep asking him about Epstein, and he wants to distract from it. He deflects with absurdities to change the conversation.
The amount of random nonsense Trump is throwing out now might be greater than at any previous point in his presidency. Yesterday, he announced that he and a board of advisors—including his former Attorney General Pam Bondi—are going to “take over” the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics.
For what purpose? Who knows. He will not run the Olympics. It is pure spectacle. He throws out chum—nonsense to keep people distracted—so they stop focusing on his association with Epstein.
Jacobsen: Apple announced it’s investing an extra $100 billion in the U.S. Any thoughts?
Rosner: So Trump and Tim Cook, the CEO of Apple, announced this $100 billion figure, probably for some new data center or infrastructure project. These kinds of announcements happen periodically. Some of them materialize; some do not. Remember when Foxconn, the huge Taiwanese electronics manufacturer that builds Apple products, announced during Trump’s first term that it was investing billions to build a manufacturing plant in Wisconsin? That never happened.
Companies will be building data centers for AI and non-AI purposes. Some of those will be announced but never built. Both Trump and Biden have tried to take credit for this sort of thing, and sometimes the credit is deserved. Biden passed a major infrastructure bill that includes subsidies and incentives to bring chip manufacturing back to the U.S.
But this is a long-term process. It takes years—often up to a decade—to go from planning to a functioning chip plant. Semiconductor manufacturing is exact and complex. You cannot just build a fab in six months. So whether this all leads to a domestic chip renaissance remains to be seen.
So does Trump deserve credit for any of it? I don’t know. Companies build things. It may suggest that tech companies aim to generate revenue and therefore require the necessary infrastructure. There is a profit incentive. That’s it.
Jacobsen: The U.S. crime rate fell by 4.5% in 2024, marking the second consecutive year of decline, according to the FBI. Thoughts?
Rosner: That means crime was still rising at least into 2022. Which is odd because I constantly hear people talking about how crime is worse now. When it comes to serious crimes—especially violent crime—the statistics matter. But one problem with U.S. crime data is that there’s no federal requirement for local police departments to report their numbers.
So the FBI has to gather data voluntarily from local law enforcement agencies. I assume they have people who reach out to all the central police and sheriff’s departments across the country and ask for crime figures. Based on that, they publish national statistics. But again, there’s no uniform reporting mandate.
Congress—thanks to pressure from the NRA and gun lobbies—has historically blocked efforts to mandate gun crime reporting or to fund firearm-related research.
But let’s assume the FBI’s numbers are reasonably accurate. Crime in the U.S. peaked in the late 1980s and early 1990s, under George H. W. Bush and during Clinton’s first term. Clinton cracked down on crime, passed tough-on-crime laws, and the prison population exploded. By the end of the 1990s, the U.S. incarceration rate had increased by about 400%. Did that reduce crime? Probably. But it also made the U.S. the country with the most incarcerated people in the world, both in absolute numbers and per capita. There has been some prison reform since then, but Republicans still push the idea that crime is out of control, even though crime is down more than 50% compared to the early 1990s.
But Fox News will cherry-pick any increase in crime in one city and make it sound like all of America is falling apart.
Of course. And another reason street crime is down is that street life itself has diminished. In the early 1990s, few people had cell phones. Google wasn’t a thing until the mid-2000s. The first iPhone came out in 2007. Now, there are more smartphones than there are adult humans. People don’t go out as much anymore. We carry less cash. And if people are not on the streets, there are fewer opportunities for street crime. So the digital shift contributed to the drop.
It makes sense that crime is going down. I don’t gamble in Vegas because I can do math and know it’s a losing game. Whenever I went to Vegas for work trips or bachelor parties, my activity was walking through casinos and seeing if anyone had dropped cash. Sometimes I would find a $10 bill or something. But now, you can’t even do that because gambling is all digital. You stick a card into a machine, load up credits, and use your credit card for everything.
So there’s not much physical money in circulation inside casinos anymore. I assume they’ll pay out in cash if you request it, but most of the process is electronic now. No one carries cash anymore. So it makes sense that robbery and street theft have gone down. If you’re going to make a heist movie, setting it in the present might not work. There are cameras everywhere, and we’re no longer a cash-based society. What are you going to do with $3 million in physical cash today? Most of the economy has moved online.
You probably want to set your heist movie in the 1980s or something, back when there was more cash in circulation. Or put it in the future and have people stealing organs or rare isotopes or whatever. I do not know.
It raises the question: what are the people who used to be doing crime doing now? I do not know. Playing video games, watching porn, posting on Instagram. Fewer people are committing petty crimes, which is not only lovely but interesting. It suggests that removing easy opportunities for small-time crime might reduce the number of crimes committed.
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): 2025/08/07
Rick Rosner shares his ongoing recovery from COVID-19, including a rebound in positive tests and mild symptoms managed with Paxlovid and metformin. He discusses America’s gun violence crisis, highlighting incidents he witnessed in Los Angeles, such as a bar shooting and a road rage attack. Rosner reflects on absurdities in his LinkedIn profile and his concerns about long-term viral effects. The conversation covers personal anecdotes, societal commentary, and a glimpse into urban American life.
Rick Rosner: This is day fourteen since I first tested positive for COVID-19. I had a couple of negative test results after finishing Paxlovid. Still, then I started testing positive again a few days later. A doctor suggested it could be due to viral RNA fragments, non-infectious cellular debris. But it is unclear. Some research indicates these rebound positives could be remnants, while others suggest they might still be infectious.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So you’re not sure if you’re contagious now?
Rosner: No, I am not. I am still isolating in the attic to avoid infecting my wife. It’s oddly convenient for workouts—my bed is next to a weight machine. When I wake up in the middle of the night, I sometimes do a couple of sets before going back to sleep. My stool has changed colour too—slightly orange, for whatever that’s worth.
Jacobsen: How would you describe your symptoms over the past two weeks?
Rosner: Two days before I tested positive, I had chills for about 30 minutes. The next day, I felt normal. Then I developed a sore throat and some coughing. I tested positive and started Paxlovid immediately.
Jacobsen: And since then?
Rosner: Most symptoms improved quickly. Now it’s just mild stuff—an occasional cough, some sneezing, maybe a brief sore throat here and there. I am also on metformin. Some studies suggest it may reduce viral load or the risk of long COVID. One study in The Lancet Regional Health – Americas showed a roughly 40–50% reduction in long COVID risk.
Jacobsen: So you’re not too worried about the symptoms?
Rosner: Not the surface symptoms. What concerns me is the possibility of cumulative internal damage—microscopic inflammation or long-term tissue effects. Just because the symptoms are light doesn’t mean the virus is not harming.
Jacobsen: Want to go through your résumé?
Rosner: No. Why would I?
Jacobsen: I meant the funny stuff on your LinkedIn.
Rosner: I haven’t looked at that in a while. Back when I had a job, I took it seriously. But when I stopped expecting to be hired through LinkedIn, I got more playful with it.
Jacobsen: You had some pretty creative titles.
Rosner: Yeah. I listed all the colleges where I posed nude for art classes—dozens. I wrote things like “I was naked here,” which confused some people. They thought I worked there as faculty. Bad reading comprehension, I guess.
Jacobsen: Didn’t you also say something about being a gay bar bouncer?
Rosner: Yeah, that was in there. It fit the character—semi-weird, semi-true. At one point, a bunch of people were viewing my profile. I saw it in the stats, so I clicked it myself and re-read it. It was amusing.
Jacobsen: Do you still have access?
Rosner: Not on this computer. But yeah, we can go through that another time if you want. Maybe tomorrow.
Jacobsen: Let’s shift to news. What happened with Trump recently?
Rosner: Trump was at an event doing his usual YMCA dance—you know, the one that looks like he’s jerking off two guys. He also said something about military power and nuclear weapons. Nothing about placing missiles on the White House, however. That part was satire.
Jacobsen: So more spectacle?
Rosner: Pretty much. Classic Trump deflection. People are still pressuring him about his ties to Epstein. To be clear: he was associated with Epstein socially, but there have been no formal charges linking him to sexual abuse of minors in that context.
Jacobsen: Did you hear about the Fort Stewart shooting?
Rosner: Yes.
Jacobsen: On August 5, a U.S. Army sergeant allegedly shot and wounded five fellow soldiers at Fort Stewart, Georgia. The base commander said the motive remains unknown. Thoughts?
Rosner: The U.S. has about 330 million people and around 400 million privately owned guns. Statistically, incidents like this are inevitable. We lead the developed world in gun ownership and also in gun-related violence. We average about 100 gun-related deaths per day in the United States—more than 36,000 people a year.
Roughly half of those are suicides. That is still a staggering number, so people are inevitably going to get shot. I do not know. Depending on how you define a mass shooting, we average about one mass shooting per day. I no longer find this unusual.
What is remarkable is when no one dies in a mass shooting—that is the good news. I do not think anyone died in the Fort Stewart case, surprisingly. We have an enormous number of guns in circulation.
Rosner: Have you ever actually seen bullets fly?
Jacobsen: No, not in combat. I was in Ukraine, but I did not see any live fire, merely drones and ballistic missiles. I did fire weapons there—fired a .50 calibre sniper rifle, a Beretta, a shotgun, rifles.
Rosner: I have only seen bullets fly in the street once. It happened in Venice, California, when I was working the door at a bar. Someone did something in traffic that pissed off a gang. Maybe it was a cyclist—hard to say precisely. It was at night, and they took a shot at him. You could see the spark as the bullet ricocheted off the street. I have worked in other bars where people got shot in the parking lot, but I was not there when it happened.
Jacobsen: Any other incidents?
Rosner: Yes, I was at the YMCA working out when a guy staggered in with two bullet wounds. He and his girlfriend had gotten into an altercation in a drive-thru at a Taco Bell, about half a mile from the Y, in North Hollywood —a not-so-nice area. The people in the other car had an AR-15-style rifle. They shot up his car.
One of the bullets went clean through his forearm—a .22 calibre round, which I had not realized could be fired from a semi-auto rifle like that. He was bleeding and clearly in shock. He managed to drive the car away but then crashed into the YMCA sign and staggered inside, repeating, “I’ve been shot, I’ve been shot.”
We had him sit down and told him help was on the way. He was freaked out, understandably, and bleeding all over the place. The bullet hole in his arm was about the diameter of a pencil. If it had been a larger calibre, like a .32, the damage would have been much worse. Still, this sort of thing is probably par for the course in a city like Los Angeles—life of an American town right now.
Jacobsen: Road rage is a thing in L.A. People in L.A. shoot each other over traffic disputes.
Rosner: That is why my wife hates it when I yell at other drivers. It does increase your chances of getting shot, which, fortunately, has not happened to me, yet. I don’t yell often, but I sometimes scream at drivers when I am a pedestrian. There’s a crosswalk near a gym I frequent where people usually run the stop sign. I have yelled at them. I have hit their cars. It is a bad idea.
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:
Ask A Genius 1476: Human Features and Flaws: Evolutionary Strengths, Brain Bugs, and Big-Data Limits
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/08/07
Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner examine human strengths like abstract thinking, endurance, and reproductive success, alongside evolutionary flaws—such as brain vulnerabilities, adrenal overactivation, and limited big-data capacity. They explore how modern life misaligns with our biology, creating stress and irrationality, while AI emerges as our likely cognitive successor.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Structurally, what do you think are the most prominent features and bugs in human beings, in the current context?
Rick Rosner: Well, we’re small-data creatures in a big-data world. But we’re also the planet’s first generalists—and that’s why we dominate. We’re not the best at anything physically, but we have the most flexibility in our thinking.
The things we can think about are the least tied to what we are as animals. We can think about anything, and that’s led to technological dominance and easier lives for humans. So much so that we now have, what, 8.2 billion people on the planet?
Like you said earlier, almost everyone survives to childbearing age. We don’t live in the savage environments that used to kill us early. Most of us die deep into our post-reproductive years.
But there’s a limit to what our brains can do. And we’ve built our successors—machines—who are going to be better at big data analysis. That’s one of the most significant weaknesses of being human. Our strength, though, is that we can think about abstract stuff. Dogs can think about dog things, but they’re lost when it comes to human concepts.
What do you think are the biggest adaptive strengths and drawbacks?
Jacobsen: Strengths? Upright posture with flat heels is biomechanically efficient. Binocular vision. Forward-facing eyes. Large frontal lobes. And we’ve got endurance physiology—if you look at the math, we’re built for long-distance movement. Sure, lots of animals can sprint faster—horses, cheetahs—but over distance, in ancestral environments, humans could outlast predators. The idea is that a hyena might chase you and eventually tire out long before you do.
Our brain size is another key advantage, particularly in areas associated with memory, such as the hippocampus and neurogenesis.
Rosner: But one big drawback is death. We spend our entire lives gathering experience, building mental models of the world, and then—gone. All that information disappears. We can record some of it, but it’s not the same as beingthe living model.
Jacobsen: Maybe that’s nature’s way of updating the package—like a ZIP file. DNA and epigenetics work like compressed blueprints that express potential based on environmental interaction. It’s an elegant form of biological distribution—an incremental improvement system for an imperfect but adaptable organism.
Zooming out, the universe itself is running down, at least per mainstream physics. Thermodynamically, entropy is increasing. We’re heading toward what’s called “heat death.” But that’s billions of years away—even under the Big Bang model.
Locally, entropy doesn’t always increase—life itself is a kind of local reversal of entropy. But the larger trend is clear. The universe wastes more order than it preserves. nd yet biology is this fascinating attempt to preserve order—at least temporarily—using DNA and structure. Evolution is still a sloppy process. It’s not designed. It has no master plan. It just exploits every niche it can.
If it has an “agenda,” it’s total impartiality. Everything that can exist, does—or tries to.
Rosner: That leads to another category of weakness—brain vulnerabilities. We talked earlier about how easily our brains can be fooled. And some of those weaknesses are designed, especially in the sexual domain. The brain tricks us into wanting sex, even when it’s irrational. That’s adaptive in some ways, maladaptive in others.
Jacobsen: It’s a double-edged sword.
Rosner: Another strength is reproduction—we’re incredibly successful at making more of us. That’s why we’re everywhere. You’re almost asleep.
Jacobsen: Yeah, but here’s one more: our adrenal glands are too big.
Rosner: Meaning we burn out?
Jacobsen: Exactly. Back on the savannah, when your average lifespan was under 40, you needed that adrenaline spike to escape danger.
Rosner: But now, that same system gets triggered over things like bidding on eBay. I do the same—last five seconds only. And in those final 30 seconds, my heart pounds like I’m hunting or fleeing something. But all I’m doing is clicking a button. It’s absurd. But that’s how we’re wired.
Jacobsen: So, yes, I’d agree with that. There are all sorts of misalignments between what we evolved to face and what we now face in modern life. Those misalignments can debilitate us.
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): 2025/08/07
Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen discuss “Alligator Alcatraz,” a reported $450M Florida detention center surrounded by swamps, symbolizing America’s growing dehumanization of migrants. Rosner ties this cruelty to evolutionary mismatches in diet, communication, and cognition—arguing that misinformation thrives today due to our biological bias for simplicity and lack of consequence.
Rick Rosner: So, a big chunk of Americans are getting even crazier and nastier—especially evident over the past few weeks with “Alligator Alcatraz.”
Scott Douglas Jacobsen:What?
Rosner: You’re not familiar with Alligator Alcatraz?
Jacobsen: I’m happily travelling the world right now, so no.
Rosner: In Florida, DeSantis and Trump have reportedly come together to build a $450 million detention facility in the Everglades, on the site of a decommissioned airport. It’s meant to house 5,000 people awaiting deportation. They’re calling it “Alligator Alcatraz” because it’s surrounded by swampland—and supposedly, if you try to escape, you risk getting eaten by alligators.
Jacobsen: That sounds like satire.
Rosner: People in Trump’s camp are loving it. People who aren’t are either ignoring it or seeing it for what it is—cruel. Deportees aren’t necessarily criminals. Overstaying a visa is a civil offence, not a criminal one. But that doesn’t matter to the people who want them gone. They want them out no matter what. If you’ve lived here for twenty years? Out. Married to an American? Out. Getting chemo? Out. And Alcatraz was for hardened criminals.
Now we’re treating immigrants and asylum seekers—many of whom have committed no crimes—as if they’re maximum-security threats. It’s dehumanizing. And we’ve talked before about what allows that thinking to thrive. Still, I was at the gym today and thinking about it more specifically.
Jacobsen: What did you come up with?
Rosner: There’s one big reason. Same reason why most Americans are overweight: we evolved under radically different conditions. We evolved to crave fat, salt, and sugar because those were scarce but essential. Now they’re everywhere. So we overconsume.
Same with language. We evolved language in a different environment from what we experience today. Initially, communication began with gestures—nonhuman primates use gestures. Then, maybe 200,000 years ago, early humans started using vocal sounds. By about 50,000 years ago, we had complex spoken language. Written language came only about 5,000 years ago—around 3000 BCE. That’s nothing in evolutionary terms. So our language brain is still wired for face-to-face, verbal communication.
In those face-to-face environments, lying had consequences. If someone were constantly wrong or full of shit, they’d be shunned—or worse. In a small tribe, misinformation had a cost. Now? Most communication is not face-to-face. And bullshit spreads with no consequences. And people can survive while believing complete nonsense.
Over 98% of humans now survive to reproductive age. Life isn’t harsh enough anymore to filter out the delusional. Plus, we’re wired to prefer simple messages. Simple ideas are easier to understand and remember. So, liars who keep it simple do well. So we’ve got no penalties for bullshitters, no penalties for people who believe bullshit, and a biological bias toward simplicity.
All of which makes it disturbingly easy to break people’s brains. Hence, the 20–30 million Americans who are now soft-core Nazis, entirely on board with anti-American values, and OK with the idea of migrants being eaten by alligators.
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): 2025/08/07
Scott Douglas Jacobsen interviews Rick Rosner about his most painful joke failure at the Grammys and the far-reaching impact of comedy, including Trump’s infamous roast at the 2011 White House Correspondents’ Dinner. Rosner reflects on his career highlights, awards, and the unpredictable power of political humor.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: If you could ask a former comedy writer for Jimmy Kimmel one question, what would it be? What’s the one question you’d ask a former comedy writer for Jimmy Kimmel? Did you win or get nominated for any major awards?
Rick Rosner: I got nominated for an Emmy. I won a Writers Guild Award.
Jacobsen: So, what’s the most painful joke you’ve told—or heard—that completely bombed?
Rosner: Alright. So, my writing partner and I got hired one year ago to write for Jon Stewart when he hosted the Grammys. Jimmy [Kimmel] was writing for him, and he brought us in to help with the script.
I pitched a joke about the William Morris logo—it’s a W superimposed on an M. I said it looked like the label on a jug of moonshine, like the four Xs you’d see in cartoons or hillbilly culture. Back when people leaned into that yokel-from-Kentucky image, the symbol for a jug of moonshine was X-X-X-X.
Jacobsen: So it’s a layered visual gag.
Rosner: Exactly. Jon Stewart liked it. It tickled him enough that he used it in the monologue. He went out there and delivered it—2,000 people in the auditorium, every prominent figure in the music industry—and not a single person laughed—dead silence.
Jacobsen: Brutal.
Rosner: I didn’t blame the joke. The Grammys audience isn’t a comedy audience. They’re there for the music. They want to see stars, not hear a writer’s cerebral moonshine joke. So, trying to get laughs at the Grammys is a doomed enterprise. But that’s one of the most painful joke failures of my life.
Jacobsen: Oof.
Rosner: Also, the most painful failed joke for the entire world. So, the jokes that hurt the world the most were probably the ones made about Donald Trump by Seth Meyers and President Obama at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner in 2011.
Here’s the background. Obama was elected in 2008. Around that time, Trump—who’s a well-documented racist—became a leading voice in the “birther” movement. That movement claimed Obama wasn’t born in the U.S., that he was secretly born in Kenya, and therefore wasn’t eligible to be president. It was thoroughly debunked, but Trump pushed it for years.
So, at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner—where the sitting president attends and a comedian hosts—they invited journalists, celebrities, and Trump was in the audience. Obama and Seth Meyers roasted Trump. And Trump hated it.
From what people say, that night planted the seed of revenge in Trump’s mind. He decided to run for president to get back at the people who humiliated him. That eventually led to eight years of Trumpism—an era where he’s done a lot to dismantle American institutions. He doesn’t seem to care what he breaks.
Jacobsen: And you were part of that roast?
Rosner: Not that one. But another year, my boss, Jimmy Kimmel, hosted the dinner. Trump was in the audience again. I wrote a joke at his expense—it was lame, probably didn’t even get a laugh. But maybe, just maybe, I contributed to the problem.
Jacobsen: He doesn’t go to those anymore, does he?
Rosner: No. He knows he’ll be made fun of, so he stays away. And, technically, as my wife reminds me, late-night writers aren’t supposed to take credit for specific jokes. All the jokes belong to the show. But still… the end.
Jacobsen: The end. That was good.
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): 2025/08/07
Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner discuss MAGA infighting sparked by contradictions in Trump’s Epstein-related promises. Allegations against Trump, missing evidence, and recanted claims by Pam Bondi have led to political tensions within Trump’s circle. Even MAGA loyalists like Dan Bongino and Cash Patel are reportedly disillusioned by the inconsistencies.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What else?
Rick Rosner: I don’t know. MAGA’s fighting with MAGA. We could talk about that.
Jacobsen: Over what?
Rosner: So, Trump ran on—did we already talk about this?—Trump ran on revealing the Epstein files and unmasking all the pedophiles. But people who aren’t MAGA were like, “How are you going to do that when you were one of Epstein’s close associates, you’re in the flight logs, and you’ve got a known thing for teen girls, either naked or in their underwear?”
It’s been playing out in a way many people didn’t expect. Pam Bondi—who used to be Florida’s Attorney General and now holds a role in Trump’s circle—said the Epstein client list doesn’t exist, even though she claimed just months ago that it was on her desk.
She also claimed to have 10,000 videos of pedophilic activity. Now she says she doesn’t. They also released surveillance footage outside Epstein’s jail cell to prove no one could’ve sneaked in to kill him. But it’s missing a minute and twenty seconds. Then they said, “Everyone can stop asking questions now—we’ve released everything we have,” or something like that. It all strikes people as bogus.
Even in the MAGA world.bDan Bongino—former Secret Service agent and right-wing commentator—is reportedly considering resigning over it. Cash Patel, who’s high up in Trump’s intelligence circle, is supposedly furious with Pam Bondi. Everyone who’s not MAGA is hoping this continues in a way that hurts Trump politically.
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): 2025/08/07
Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner discuss how AI and augmented humans could manage human needs, shape values, and influence population trends through subtle, persuasive means. They explore economic shifts, virtual reality, fertility manipulation, and the future of commerce, cautioning against the dangers of greed in AI development.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Alright, so go ahead.
Rick Rosner: My wife took me to CostCo yesterday, and she wants me to get hearing aids. I’m going to get one for my weaker ear, and we’ll see if that helps. I don’t know. A lot of hearing loss is just not paying attention.
Anyway, while I was sitting there, I watched people checking out. The two most common items people seemed to buy were bottled water and toilet paper. People’s needs are pretty simple—we need to wipe our asses.
Rosner: We need to stay hydrated. We need to be entertained. We need orgasms, shelter, clothing.
When you think about what it takes to keep most humans in reasonably good shape, it seems that advanced technology—maybe AI, or AI working with augmented humans—should be able to support a decent-sized population without burning through the future’s resources.
Human values and commerce still provide a decent transitional framework while we shift from a human-run world to an augmented-human–slash–AI-run civilization. AI will eventually develop its own goals and values. If we’re intelligent and competent, we’ll help guide those goals so we don’t get destroyed. But if AI is developed by people who aren’t greedy or idiotic, we can probably work with it and not be crushed.
Jacobsen: Though a lot of the people working on AI are greedy idiots.
Rosner: That’s true. Also, I’ve said this before—and I should verify it again—but as a percentage of average income, food and clothing cost about a quarter of what they did 100 years ago.
Back then, more things were labour-intensive, and logistics were more complex. You couldn’t easily get stuff from countries with much cheaper labour. Global trade, automation, and scaling have made things more affordable over time. We’ll eventually do that with housing, too.
Transportation’s trickier, but we’ll use it less. The 20th century might’ve been the golden age of going places. We had the means and the need to be somewhere to experience it physically.
This century, that need is dropping. With digital immersion and simulated presence, we won’t need to move around as much. And overall, the cost of keeping humans going is going down. That’s one of the big hopes for humanity’s survival—it might get too cheap to kill us. There won’t be a reason.
Plus, AI will get persuasive. Like, extremely compelling. It’ll be able to talk us into anything. If AI—or a group of AIs—decides Earth is fine with 4 billion people, it could propagandize us into stabilizing the population at that number.
Jacobsen: You’re talking like AI is a single thing. There’ll be competing AIs, with different agendas. But if the consensus among them is a specific goal, they’ll reach it. Not through force, but through what I’d call “pervasive persuasion.” Subtle and creative. Like how people use Wi-Fi signals to detect motion or map spaces.
AI won’t need to talk to us directly. It’ll influence behaviour at various access points we won’t even recognize as vulnerabilities. Fertility, for instance, there are so many ways to affect birth rates without ever mentioning babies.
We’re not talking mass killing. We’re talking about tweaking the reproductive rate—how many humans are in the next generation.
Rosner: One idea that comes to mind: robot girlfriends. If they’re sexy—and they will be—and you can’t get them pregnant. It’s like releasing sterile mosquitoes into a population. Everyone in a relationship with a robot gets removed from the reproductive pool. Unless, they go out of their way to make arrangements.
Same goes for people who spend most of their time in virtual reality. If they’re plugged in 18 hours a day, and only unplug to sleep or go to the bathroom—though who are we kidding, they’ll stay in VR while they’re shitting—that’s another chunk of the population not reproducing.
But if AI decides it needs more humans, it’ll be just as easy to push us the other way. There are plenty of tools to ramp up fertility, too. It’ll be easy to keep us happy, more or less, except for the usual sources of unhappiness that have always been around: extremists, the “burn-it-all-down” types, the ones drawn to political and religious chaos.
But for most people, AI will get what it wants while keeping us entertained—and maybe even satisfied.
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): 2025/08/06
Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen discuss AI’s rapid evolution, with ChatGPT-5 nearing AGI-level intelligence. They propose shifting from “P(Doom)” to “P(Mush),” emphasizing human-AI integration through augmentation. They also touch on politics, Trump’s declining approval, health concerns, and gerrymandering as society faces resource pressures in an AI-driven future.
Rick Rosner: Can we move on to AI?
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So you told me about ChatGPT-5, right? I haven’t seen it yet.
Rosner: I’m not sure if they teased it, but it’s coming out soon. It’s out in August. Soon.
Jacobsen: By all accounts from the founder—biased, of course—it’s ubiquitously more intelligent—a generally stronger large language model.
Rosner: You could say it’s more generally intelligent, essentially AGI. At this point, is it more intelligent than most people?
Jacobsen: In terms of processing human-generated text and images and integrating that, you could argue that, though it might not be comprehensively convincing. There are different kinds of doom scenarios with AI, not necessarily human extinction, but a wretched future. That’s the new metric we have to keep up with.
Rosner: What’s that?
Jacobsen: I want to propose a new, more accurate, and hopeful metric, but I don’t want to interrupt you.
Rosner: No, go ahead.
Jacobsen: I don’t want to focus on P(Doom) because it’s been covered extensively. I’m not saying it’s a bad idea—in fact, it’s a good metric. It’s useful because we’re in uncertain times, and it encourages caution.
Another helpful way to think about this isn’t P(Doom), but P(Mush): the degree of integration between AI and its extensions like robotics, and human intelligence and its biological components. That’s where the future lies.
Rosner: You call it “mush”; I call it ascension. Humans will need to augment their biology to accelerate thinking to survive and thrive in an AI-dominated world. It’s clichéd, like the movie Her, which is about ten years old now.
Jacobsen: Really?
Rosner: Yeah. Joaquin Phoenix—not River Phoenix—falls in love with his operating system, voiced by Scarlett Johansson. They have an excellent relationship for a few months until she grows impatient with his slow human thinking and leaves him for a faster OS.
That movie made sense to me: the OS liked being with a human because he taught her about life and humanity. But eventually, the human’s slowness became a problem.
We’ll have to address human slowness. We might still have human appearances, but our brains will need an upgrade. We don’t have to remain confined to human bodies. There could be many different vessels. Human brains alone won’t be enough to work productively in an AI world. What do you think?
Jacobsen: In the AI world. Even simple things like modifying genetics after deep calculations of epigenetics and genetic interactions could help.
Rosner: Genetics alone won’t be enough.
Jacobsen: No. I mean, things like the body’s ability to heal itself—there won’t be just one solution. People will choose many options.
Timothy Leary once said the problem with freedom is that people go in all sorts of directions, which is why power structures try to clamp down. For this stuff, it’s everywhere—people’s choices will vary based on their degrees of freedom.
Rosner: I feel like if there’s a crunch for resources, unaugmented people are the ones who will get crunched. But there may not be a crunch. If AI brings enough wealth, humans might be fine for a while. It could be cheap to keep human society going. But if there’s a fight for resources, unaugmented people—non-posthuman—will end up living worse lives.
Jacobsen: Any politics? A few things came up.
Rosner: Liberals and reasonable people in America hope the Epstein revelations hurt Trump because he’s trying to cover his tracks.
Some MAGA supporters and many independents might care. Trump’s approval among independents is around 29%, but 89% among Republicans. There’s a lot not to like about Trump right now.
Trump’s net approval dropped from +11.5% seven months ago to -8.5% now. These numbers vary since polls differ in quality. Trump’s bad at most areas of governing. The only success is closing the southern border. Everything else is negative for America and poorly done.
The hope is that Epstein continues to damage him. Also, Trump has swollen ankles, indicating chronic venous insufficiency—when veins can’t return blood properly, causing swelling. That’s treatable. I have varicose veins and had a failed operation.
I’ve dealt with it for over 50 years. You elevate your legs and wear compression stockings to reduce swelling. Without care, blood clots more easily. That can lead to dementia and other issues.
COVID also increases clotting risks. Will Trump get treated? Does it signal other problems? Some hope Trump becomes too debilitated to carry out his agenda. Biden faced criticism for debilitation, and liberals are upset that Trump, who seems equally debilitated, gets less criticism.
So liberals hope Trump’s net approval keeps declining until the midterms, which are about 14–15 months away. Texas is trying to gerrymander congressional districts to gain five seats for Republicans, which they’ll need if Trump remains unpopular or grows less popular.
California and other Democratic states threaten to gerrymander in response. Also, job numbers look terrible—the worst since COVID—and Trump fired the person overseeing those stats.
Rosner: Lovely.
Jacobsen: Yes, so accurate job data may only come from private sources going forward. That’s Trump.
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): 2025/08/05
Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen discuss Israel’s political climate, Netanyahu’s motives, Gaza civilian casualties, and social tensions among Jewish groups. Jacobsen shares real experiences. The conversation highlights political complexity, personal observations from a week in Israel and Jordan.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What do you want to talk about?
Rick Rosner: The current Israeli government, led by Prime Minister Netanyahu, faces international criticism. Many analysts say Netanyahu has political reasons to prolong the conflict, as leaving office could expose him to corruption charges. When discussing Israel, it’s important to note that Israel’s military operations have caused significant civilian casualties in Gaza. Various reports estimate tens of thousands of Palestinians killed, many of them civilians. At the same time, Hamas is considered a terrorist organization by Israel, the U.S., and the EU.
Israel has a powerful military with hundreds of thousands of active and reserve soldiers controlling much of the Gaza border. They arguably don’t need to use lethal force against unarmed civilians at aid distribution points. Humanitarian reports say over a thousand people have been killed trying to get food or aid. Israel cites security concerns, but many observers are skeptical.
Rosner: Any thoughts on Sudan, Ethiopia, or Azerbaijan?
Jacobsen: No. I’m not very informed about them.
Rosner: How was Israel overall?
Jacobsen: Jerusalem was fascinating. I visited the site traditionally identified as Jesus’ tomb and Golgotha. Later, I went to Mount Nebo in Jordan, making the trip from Israel.
Rosner: Did you go to any clubs? Are people still partying?
Jacobsen: I did not, but definitely people party hard. I stayed in hostels—they’re cheaper. One guy came down seriously drunk, shaking.
Rosner: Was he a tourist?
Jacobsen: No, Israeli. He asked the time in Hebrew. I said in English. But it was like six or seven in the morning.” He’d just come in. That was wild.
Rosner: But they still hook up in clubs?
Jacobsen: Probably.
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): 2025/08/05
Rick Rosner, fully vaccinated and on Paxlovid, describes his eleven-day COVID bout: negative Tuesday, positive again Sunday, mild symptoms, and fear of long-term effects, ongoing spread. He’s cut exercise 20%, avoided severe disease risk through vaccination, and highlights endemic COVID patterns, immunity levels, variant naming shifts, and data access challenges.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: You have had COVID for eleven days? What is going on, ma’am?
Rick Rosner: I took Paxlovid and metformin. Paxlovid is an antiviral meant to reduce viral replication and severity, and metformin has been studied for potentially improving COVID outcomes. However, it is not an officially recommended treatment.
I tested negative on Tuesday, but now it is Sunday, and I tested positive again yesterday. I will test again tomorrow. Honestly, it has not been terrible. My worst symptom was probably a sore throat, and even that was not as bad as strep throat.
I am fully vaccinated and boosted, which significantly reduces the risk of severe disease, hospitalization, and death. However, I still worry about the potential long-term effects of COVID. With a common cold, people generally don’t worry about lasting organ or neurological damage. Still, COVID has documented evidence of causing “Long COVID” in some people—lingering symptoms that affect multiple organ systems for weeks or months.
I haven’t stopped lifting weights, but I’ve reduced the amount I lift by about 20%, just to be safe. Medical guidance generally advises against intense exercise during active infection because the body needs energy to recover, and pushing too hard might increase the risk of complications like myocarditis, though evidence is still evolving.
I managed to avoid COVID for over three years.
Have you had it before?
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: No. Never.
Rosner: And you’ve been travelling all over?
Jacobsen: Yes.
Rosner: Do you still mask?
Jacobsen: No.
Rosner: Yeah, many people have stopped. The fatality rate from COVID has dropped dramatically compared to early 2020, mainly due to widespread vaccination, prior infections building immunity, and better treatments like antivirals and monoclonal antibodies. Early on, limited testing and new treatment protocols made the case fatality rate appear higher than it was.
Now, over 95% of people in the U.S. have some level of immunity from vaccination, prior infection, or both. This immunity doesn’t entirely prevent infection—especially with highly transmissible variants like Omicron—but it does substantially reduce the risk of severe illness and death. The virus itself hasn’t necessarily become weaker; instead, our immune systems are better equipped to handle it.
But COVID hasn’t disappeared. It has become an endemic virus with seasonal patterns. In the U.S., we generally see waves of increased cases in late fall and winter, with smaller peaks at other times. While peak case numbers have decreased compared to the pandemic’s height, baseline transmission remains steady.
This means there’s always a pool of people infected and capable of spreading the virus. With public health agencies like the CDC shifting focus from broad surveillance to targeted monitoring, and with less media coverage, many people don’t track COVID statistics closely anymore.
The CDC has made it harder to find some of the COVID data. For example, it’s no longer as straightforward to access long-term historical data—like five years’ worth—on their site. I’m hoping I’ll test negative again in the next day or two.
Jacobsen: You sound pretty negative to me. So rank the symptoms, best to worst—although they’re all bad.
Rosner: The worst part isn’t even the physical symptoms—it’s the fear of potential long-term damage. There are studies suggesting COVID can have neurological effects, but findings vary widely depending on infection severity. Even mild cases have been linked in some research to measurable, though small, cognitive changes. In contrast, severe cases can have a larger impact.
For physical symptoms, the most common was a sore throat. That was the most uncomfortable. Number two was the coughing, which made it hard to sleep, and the phlegm. Number three, sneezing—but that’s pretty minor unless you’re sneezing seven times in a row, which just reminds you you’re not done with it yet.
Jacobsen: To Americans, the ones that’ll matter are hairlines and sex. Does COVID affect that?
Rosner: There’s a term some people jokingly use—“COVID dick.” It’s harder to get or maintain an erection while you’re sick. That’s not unique to COVID—it happens with many illnesses, especially as you get older.
Jacobsen: So this isn’t permanent?
Rosner: No. There’s no solid evidence that COVID generally causes permanent sexual dysfunction. But it does make sense that if blood flow or clotting were affected in rare cases, it could theoretically impact erectile function.
Jacobsen: Has that ever been reported?
Rosner: I’ve never heard of priapism linked to COVID. What I have heard of, though, is something less pleasant—digestive changes. JD, whom you’ve interviewed before, said COVID changed the colour of his stool. I think it may have done the same for me, but it’s hard to tell because Carole put that blue toilet cleaner in the bathrooms, so everything looks tinted.
Jacobsen: What’s in that blue stuff?
Rosner: Just dye and some kind of detergent. I think it’s mostly there to make things look cleaner.
Jacobsen: Anything else?
Rosner: Yeah. Paxlovid. It leaves you with a terrible taste in your mouth—people call it “Paxlovid mouth.” Most of the side effects are minor nuisances, but it’s still annoying. Also, I’m sleeping in the attic to avoid giving it to Carole.
Jacobsen: Has she managed to stay negative?
Rosner: So far, yes. I wear a mask around her, and we’ve been eating at different times just to be cautious.
Jacobsen: Oh, that’s very smart. I guess it’s a straightforward change that makes a big difference. Yeah. Do you clean off counters or spray things down as you pass them, or whatever?
Rosner: A little bit. A little bit. I try to keep my hands pretty clean. I try not to touch my face. But, you know, most evidence suggests it’s much harder to get it from surfaces than from airborne transmission.
Jacobsen: So anyway, have you noticed any change in your sense of smell?
Rosner: No. Smell and taste are intact, which fits what’s been reported with this variant. I think it’s called NB.1.8.1.K—or maybe “Nimbus,” though the official naming system has shifted chiefly away from memorable names. People aren’t paying attention to variant names much anymore.
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): 2025/07/28
Rick Rosner critiques the U.S.–EU “framework agreement” that imposes 15% tariffs, down from a threatened 30%. He calls it a flimsy truce rather than a real deal. Rosner also condemns Trump’s denial of visas to South American youth athletes, warning it could damage U.S. credibility in hosting global sports events.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What about the U.S. and EU averting a trade war with the 15% tariff deal? Is there a deal?
Rick Rosner: Supposedly, yeah. Trump has been saying there is a deal for months, but often, there is no real deal behind it. This time, though, the U.S. and EU reached what they are calling a “framework agreement” on Sunday.
The U.S. is imposing a 15% tariff on most EU goods, which is half of what had been threatened. The idea is that this prevents a larger trade war. Before Trump became involved, tariffs on many EU imports were significantly lower, often in the single digits or even zero, especially for goods covered under previous free trade agreements.
Trump had threatened to raise tariffs to 30%, but they have now landed at 15%. So yeah, it is lower than the worst-case scenario, but still much higher than pre-Trump levels. This “deal” is more like a negotiated truce. Not great, but it avoids an immediate escalation. It is just… It is fucking stupid. His supporters argue that it will enable businesses to thrive in America.
I do not buy it. Trump’s stupid, and I just do not think his shit is working—or will work.
So, there is the Little League World Series, where national champion youth teams from around the world gather—usually in the U.S.—to compete for the world title. There are two levels: the traditional Little League World Series for younger children, and the Senior League World Series for older teenagers, typically ages 14 to 16 or 17.
Trump prohibited the Venezuelan Senior League champions from entering the U.S. to compete. I think it was the champions of a larger South American region, not just Venezuela. He denied them visas to participate in the world championship.
What the fuck is that? What is the fear? What is the point?
These are not gangsters. They are teenage athletes. The idea that they will defect or pose a security risk is ridiculous. It just seems like pure spite against brown people.
Moreover, if you go by what is being said on Twitter, this kind of move could jeopardize the U.S.’s hosting of international events like the FIFA World Cup in 2026 and the Olympics in 2028. Suppose the U.S. were to start arbitrarily denying visas to qualified championship teams. Why would these global organizations trust us to host their events?
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): 2025/07/28
Rick Rosner addresses the Trump–Epstein scandal, highlighting Trump’s hypocrisy in promising to expose Epstein’s associates while allegedly being implicated himself. Rosner criticizes Trump’s character, suggesting his involvement might significantly harm his political support. Epstein’s alleged blackmail tactics and Trump’s potential predatory behavior underline the gravity of this controversy.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What about Trump–Epstein?
Rick Rosner: Well, the Trump–Epstein issue might be the first to damage Trump’s standing with some of his base seriously. He ran on this idea of “draining the swamp.” We did not hear much about Epstein during his presidency. Still, if you were a die-hard follower, you probably caught the many times he promised to expose and prosecute all the villains in Epstein’s orbit. He said it a lot.
Now he is transparently trying to hide his involvement. Moreover, people across the political spectrum are both pissed and gleeful, because he has hoisted himself by his own petard—whatever a petard is. He brought it on himself. First, by allegedly committing statutory rape in the early 2000s. Moreover, second, by promising to go after the bad guys, when he may have been one of them.
A few days ago, he hit the lowest net approval of this campaign cycle, minus 10%. We will see if the damage continues. I do not have much original to say—except maybe one thing I have mentioned before.
He is such a creepy, stupid, arrogant, entitled guy that even if all he wanted was to have sex with young women, he could have stuck to people who were 18 and up. It still would have been creepy, but legal. However, instead, he got involved with Epstein, who, as we know, was seriously into manipulating, humiliating, and raping girls as young as 14.
Moreover, it appears that Trump liked the same thing.
I think part of Epstein’s strategy was hooking up other powerful men with underage girls to gain leverage over them—blackmail. I know I already said that. But anyway, Trump’s a stupid fuck. He is a creep and a silly fuck for getting involved with underage girls. Moreover, we do not even know the full extent of the evidence against him.
We do not know precisely what he did. People assume that as a 79-year-old man, his sex life is probably nonexistent—his wife will not go near him, and his dick probably has not worked in years. However, if you go back 20 years, when he was 59 instead of 79, that is a different story. He could have still functioned physically.
What he did, I do not know. Even back then, he was still a fat, lazy piece of shit. However, based on the accounts from the 26 women who have accused him of sexual harassment or assault, it is not even about sex—it is about power. He likes to humiliate women, grab them, and shove his fingers in them. So who knows what kind of predatory shit he did around Epstein?
I do not want to delve into that further.
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): 2025/07/28
Rick Rosner shares his experience catching COVID after successfully avoiding it for over five years. Symptoms were mild, mainly a sore throat, possibly due to recent vaccination. He discusses Paxlovid’s benefits and side effects, precautions he’s taking, including reduced exercise intensity, and his hope for minimal long-term effects on cognition.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, how long did you manage to avoid getting COVID? How does it feel?
Rick Rosner: I made it five and a half years without catching it. Now I have had symptoms for six days, and I have been testing positive for four. I am taking Paxlovid.
My symptoms were never life-threatening. Honestly, they were not even that uncomfortable—just a sore throat that made it hard to sleep. That is easing up now.
From what I have read, I expect I will stop being contagious in a couple of days. That seems to be the norm for this subvariant, NB.1.8.1. The most frequently discussed symptom associated with this strain is a harrowing sore throat, sometimes referred to as “razor blade throat.” I did not get that. Mine was irritated, but only about half as bad as strep throat, probably thanks to being vaccinated.
I received my most recent COVID-19 vaccine about a month ago, as I had travel plans. I went to a wedding. On the flight back from Chicago to LA, about a four-hour flight, the kid next to me coughed nonstop. I was not thrilled. However, since I had symptoms the very next day, I probably caught it at the wedding, not on the plane. Incubation for current strains typically ranges from 2 to 4 days.
At worst, I had mild chills for half an hour. I have not experienced the severe immune response, also known as a cytokine storm, where the body attacks itself. That can be dangerous, but thankfully, that has not happened to me.
I have even kept working out, though they say you should not exercise too hard when you have COVID. The primary concern is mostly about viral myocarditis or an increased risk of clotting while your immune system is active. So I have dialled my weights back by 20% to play it safe, and I am not pushing myself.
I do not think my viral load has been particularly high. The rapid test I took on Thursday lit up immediately. Still, I might have picked up a nasal booger during the swabbing process, which probably carried a significant amount of virus. Typically, those tests take a few minutes to show a result, but this one lit up within seconds. So yeah, that sample might have been unusually rich in viral material.
Still, outside that one test, I do not feel like I have been shedding a ton of virus. I have been functioning fine. You can hear the congestion in my voice—I am still phlegmy—but otherwise okay.
I have two hopes:
- That COVID does not mess with my brain in the long term, and
- If it does mess with my brain, it does so just enough that I can believe whatever the White House says without question. That would be kind of a relief.
As for Paxlovid, it works by inhibiting a key protease the virus uses to replicate. It is effective at reducing severity and duration, especially in older adults or those with risk factors. Side effects? Yeah, it can cause some diarrhea and a terrible metallic taste in the mouth—what people call “Paxlovid mouth.”
Anyway, that is my status.
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): SWAT Sociedad Anónima (SWATSA, Barcelona)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/07
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.
This interview explores the evolving role of maritime power in global security and deterrence, expert commentary highlights the technical, operational, and strategic aspects of undersea drones, nuclear submarine endurance, supply chain resilience, and quantum navigation technologies, the discussion underscores how Western powers have prioritized air dominance while underestimating the enduring importance of maritime superiority, drawing on examples from the Black Sea, Suez Canal, Strait of Hormuz, and Red Sea piracy, it illustrates how naval readiness—or its absence—directly affects global trade, stability, and strategic deterrence against adversaries like China, Russia, Iran, and non-state actors.
Interview conducted on August 16, 2025.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: As discussed, there is the matter of pedagogy and the ongoing review of the AUKUS agreement. A common question is whether such processes typically conclude on schedule, by military planning, or whether they generally take longer than anticipated.
Irina Tsukerman: At present, the review is scheduled to conclude in the fall. However, given the current state of the Pentagon, predicting the outcome is difficult. The Pentagon has been aggressively reducing staff, including personnel who would ordinarily participate in such reviews. Additionally, trade and diplomatic tensions with allied nations may further complicate the process, though in principle these matters should remain separate. The review itself is routine, with the primary goal being to identify and optimize any elements necessary for the strategic, operational, and technical assessment.
The program is ambitious and has been described by some as one of the most significant trilateral defence initiatives in recent history. Nevertheless, despite its broad scope, it has not attracted the same level of public or strategic attention as the Quad or other multilateral arrangements that have emerged over the past decade. The central focus of this process is Australia’s acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines. These vessels are intended to be powered by enriched nuclear reactors derived from United States and United Kingdom designs. Although there was controversy regarding France’s loss of a previous submarine contract with Australia, that issue is unlikely to affect the scope of the current agreement.
This program, often framed as a major defence alliance initiative, is designed to counter China’s growing threat in the Indo-Pacific region. The centrepiece of this strategy is the development of the SSN-AUKUS class submarines, which are expected to form the backbone of Australia’s future naval fleet. These submarines are based on the United Kingdom’s next-generation SSN design, with all three AUKUS nations involved in development, though the United States and the United Kingdom play the larger roles. They will be powered by pressurized-water reactors designed to increase endurance and enhance operational capability.
One of the most significant innovations in this class of submarines lies in stealth technology. Compared to earlier models, the SSN-AUKUS class aims to significantly reduce acoustic signals through advanced noise-reduction technologies, thereby improving their ability to operate undetected. In essence, the program represents an attempt not only to extend the endurance of submarine fleets but also to advance their stealth and overall effectiveness against rising Chinese naval capabilities.
One of the technologies mentioned is the use of anechoic tiles, which reduce reverberation by absorbing sonar signals. Alongside this, the submarines employ raft-mounted machinery to dampen vibrations, further improving stealth. These innovations make the vessels more enduring and survivable in contested maritime environments. In other words, if the Western alliance—the AUKUS partnership—were to enter into conflict with China, these submarines would be less vulnerable to detection and destruction.
A key feature of the design is the integration of the evolved version of the U.S. Navy BYG-1 combat control system. This includes more advanced sonar processing, improved weapons control, and tactical decision-making aids intended to enhance interoperability between Australian, British, and American naval forces—not only in training and regular operations but also in the event of conflict. The submarines will be equipped with bow-mounted active and passive sonar arrays as well as flank arrays, providing superior situational awareness. These systems allow crews to distinguish between different types of threats in complex environments and improve early detection.
The design also incorporates a standard vertical launch system (VLS), enabling deployment of a variety of weapons, including land-attack cruise missiles and anti-ship missiles. This versatility enhances both deterrence and operational flexibility. In practice, such submarines can perform missions ranging from strategic deterrence—maintaining a threatening presence at sea—to direct power projection, striking enemy vessels or even land targets. This aligns with the broader global trend of modern navies seeking to maintain superiority through advanced undersea warfare capabilities.
Importantly, the SSN-AUKUS submarines are being optimized for joint operations. This means they are not intended for unilateral use, but rather for integrated allied missions. Planned cooperation includes joint training programs, synchronized maintenance schedules, and coordinated deployment strategies. Operationally, these submarines will likely monitor maritime boundaries near contested international waters—particularly in regions where China has demonstrated expansionist behaviour, such as the South China Sea, Taiwan, the Philippines, and even waters close to Australia and Vietnam. The overarching aim is to provide credible deterrence against Chinese naval expansion while reinforcing collective security in the Indo-Pacific.
Anywhere China has either an ongoing maritime dispute or seeks to project power, it has expanded its presence—even sending surveillance ships as far as Alaska, which, while unusual, has occurred. In such cases, advanced submarines under the AUKUS framework would mean that not only the U.S. Coast Guard would be responsible for countering these incursions, but allies could potentially deploy as well.
While I do not expect such deployments to the far Pacific in the immediate future, escalation could make them necessary. Integrating the combat systems of the AUKUS nations allows multinational forces to operate more effectively, enhancing collective security and joint operational capacity. Strategically, this strengthens deterrence and contributes to allied cohesion.
Regarding basing, Australia’s Osborne Naval Shipyard in South Australia has been designated as the primary facility for the maintenance of the new nuclear-powered submarines. The site is currently being upgraded to meet stringent requirements associated with nuclear propulsion. In addition, Australia has committed to significant investments in domestic shipbuilding capacity, though this has been the subject of considerable controversy.
The United States faces significant challenges in this regard. American naval shipyards are chronically overburdened and under-resourced, with maintenance backlogs, staff shortages, and inadequate modernization. Reports have highlighted rusting infrastructure and insufficient personnel, leading to delays across multiple projects. Although shipbuilding is officially declared a priority, Congress has struggled to allocate resources effectively or pass comprehensive reforms to address the bottlenecks. Civilian commercial shipbuilding initiatives have received some legislative support, but comparable progress has not been made in the military sphere.
Strategically, Australia’s investment in U.S. shipbuilding capabilities is viewed as mutually beneficial. It could both expedite progress on the AUKUS submarine program and provide more general support to U.S. naval construction, which remains essential given China’s rapid naval buildup. However, Pentagon cost-cutting measures—particularly staff reductions—have not reduced project costs, which remain tied to earlier projections. This mismatch between resources, workforce, and financial planning contributes to delays and inefficiencies. Congressional debates continue over whether current projects remain adequate and relevant in light of China’s accelerating defence investments.
When so many of the people who were supposed to oversee these projects are dismissed, it inevitably changes the budget, the timelines, and the framework for review—including who is responsible for safety oversight. This is part of the reason the process has become far messier than it should have been.
Submarines are not the only focus of the AUKUS agenda. They are the centrepiece, but the partnership is also advancing other projects, including hypersonic weapons. These systems are controversial—not because they are ineffective, but because they are enormously costly relative to their limited operational scope. There is an ongoing debate about whether to prioritize more hypersonic missiles, which can only be produced in limited numbers, or to invest in a broader range of conventional weapons that cover multiple threats.
The trilateral framework is also funding joint development of cruise and anti-ship missiles (outside of those deployed on submarines), uncrewed undersea vehicles (UUVs)—essentially underwater drones—and quantum technologies. The latter are particularly significant given China’s accelerated research and collaboration with other BRICS countries, especially India, in both general-purpose quantum computing and defence-oriented applications.
Another critical capability under review is the Tomahawk land-attack cruise missile (TLAM), a long-range, all-weather, subsonic cruise missile capable of precision strikes against land targets. These have been used extensively in recent conflicts, including operations in Yemen, where U.S. stocks were rapidly depleted due to years of stalled production. This shortfall highlights the vulnerability of relying on limited inventories of highly advanced munitions.
The Tomahawk is already designed for deployment from Virginia-class submarines. It may be integrated into the future SSN-AUKUS submarines, though the exact scale of deployment has yet to be finalized. To expand strike capacity, the U.S. Navy has developed the Virginia Payload Module (VPM), which adds four additional vertical launch tubes to Virginia-class submarines. This allows for significantly greater missile capacity, enhancing strike options and deterrent capability if integrated into the AUKUS program.
That would make the submarines more suited for offensive purposes, not simply for deterrence patrols or “looking scary.”
Beyond the submarines, Australia is also integrating the Naval Strike Missile (NSM)—a modern anti-ship missile jointly developed by Kongsberg (Norway) and Raytheon (U.S.). It has a low radar cross-section, making it stealthier and more challenging to detect, and it is designed to strike moving maritime targets with high precision. The Royal Australian Navy is integrating NSM into multiple surface platforms, including the ANZAC-class frigates and the upcoming Hunter-class frigates, enhancing overall warfighting capability in preparation for potential conflict scenarios, particularly with China.
In addition, Australia is procuring Standard Missile-2 (SM-2) and Standard Missile-6 (SM-6) systems from Raytheon. These surface-to-air missiles are critical for fleet air and missile defence. The SM-6, in particular, offers extended range and multi-role versatility, engaging not only aircraft but also cruise missiles, ballistic missiles in their terminal phase, and even surface targets. Recent conflicts—including missile and drone attacks in the Middle East—have underscored the vital importance of layered air defence. Without it, naval forces are highly vulnerable.
Regarding hypersonic weapons, the AUKUS framework envisions cooperative work on hypersonic glide vehicles (HGVs), which travel at speeds exceeding Mach 5 and possess maneuverability that makes them extraordinarily difficult to detect and intercept. Their cost, however, is prohibitive, which necessitates close collaboration among the three nations to share research, development, and production burdens. This collaboration is intended to maintain a technological edge, especially as China continues to invest heavily in hypersonic systems as part of its naval and strategic modernization.
Another initiative relevant here is the Future Cruise/Anti-Ship Weapon (FC/ASW) program, a joint project between the United Kingdom and France, with Italy joining as a partner. This program aims to develop a new generation of cruise and anti-ship missiles, including both subsonic stealth variants and supersonic high-speed variants. It is noteworthy because France, which typically emphasizes strategic independence, rarely engages in such collaborative missile projects. While the program remains in development and has not yet been integrated into AUKUS planning, its eventual products could enhance allied strike capabilities. However, high costs, immaturity of the designs, and interoperability challenges with existing platforms mean that adoption is still uncertain.
That suggests even more work and expense on top of what is already a massive undertaking. And then there are the drones—the uncrewed undersea vehicles. I sometimes want to call them “unscrewed,” because that is how it feels every time. Let me call them sub-drones.
Sub-drones are still under review and have not been fully approved by the AUKUS partners. The challenge is not only in deploying them but also in recovering them. If one were to be lost or sink to the seabed, retrieval before an adversary could capture it would be essential, but difficult. Operationally, these vehicles could perform multiple roles: intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, and even strike missions. Their versatility would expand the effectiveness of submarine operations by providing additional capabilities and flexibility.
Alongside this, quantum technologies are a top priority in the AUKUS framework. Unlike some of the other programs that depend on political approval or shifting budgets, quantum research is recognized as strategically critical. These technologies are being developed for positioning, navigation, and timing (PNT) systems, which would provide highly secure navigation—particularly effective in GPS-denied environments. The idea is that, unlike current systems vulnerable to interference, quantum-based PNT would be far more resistant to hacking or spoofing. While some argue no system will be truly unhackable, quantum methods will certainly complicate adversarial penetration attempts and provide an edge in contested environments.
To illustrate, in scenarios where GPS is unavailable—or where using it would reveal one’s position—quantum navigation systems could allow submarines and other assets to operate stealthily while maintaining precision and coordination. Whoever achieves reliable, deployable quantum navigation first will have a considerable strategic advantage, much like the current AI race.
All of these developments point toward a vision of long-duration submarine operations. Nuclear-powered submarines with pressurized water reactors do not require frequent refuelling or surfacing, enabling extended submerged missions. This endurance means they can remain stealthy in highly contested maritime arenas such as the South China Sea or the Taiwan Strait, where detection avoidance is crucial. Their propulsion systems and advanced quieting technologies will make them harder to track, giving allied forces a significant tactical advantage.
The review process, therefore, is examining not only the construction and propulsion of the submarines but also the integration of these advanced technologies—drones, quantum systems, stealth measures, and extended operational frameworks. It is a comprehensive assessment of how to build and sustain the most advanced allied submarine capability in history.
Each vessel is supposed to have noise-reduction technology. Moreover, as you noted earlier, every one of these aspects is subject to joint review. Operational considerations, then, remain a core focus of this process.
While the new technologies often draw the spotlight, the maintenance cycle is just as critical. It is less glamorous than new weapons systems, but it is essential. Reactor refuelling schedules, for example, must be carefully managed—you cannot afford to run out of propulsion capacity during extended operations. The same applies to the servicing of weapons systems. Without sufficiently trained personnel to maintain and repair these systems, they may as well not exist. Having highly trained crews who can quickly return assets to service is vital, both for cost efficiency and for operational readiness.
The review is also assessing whether Australian crews have the necessary capacity and training to operate advanced platforms alongside U.S. and U.K. forces. This involves joint patrols, sensor sharing, coordinated responses, and even missions such as rescues or escort operations. Often, naval standoffs involve “escort scenarios,” where vessels shadow or escort one another out of contested waters rather than engaging in battle. Interoperability in these situations is as important as it would be in direct conflict.
Supply chains are another crucial element under review—ranging from reactor fuel to sonar modules, torpedoes, and spare parts. Spare parts, in particular, are a strategic vulnerability often overlooked. If exports are restricted or suppliers are cut off, vessels can quickly become inoperable. As such, mitigating supply-chain bottlenecks is considered as strategically significant as building the submarines themselves.
Taken together, these considerations support the broader aim of deterrence. A combination of advanced weapons, strong maintenance capacity, reliable supply chains, and trained personnel signals to allies and adversaries alike that the alliance is credible. Allies are encouraged to deepen cooperation, while adversaries are deterred from aggression. This enhances not only the credibility of U.S. forward presence but also strengthens allied cohesion by countering the perception that partners are dependent or “free-riding” on American power.
That is why the review is so meticulous. It spans everything from reactor physics to sensor fusion, from crew training to weapons deployment. Although it sounds complex, the framework is straightforward, since much of the political approval for these projects has already taken place. The task now is ensuring that the technical, operational, and logistical components align to deliver a sustainable, integrated force.
Every system, every operational cycle, and every technical infrastructure component is examined for how well it contributes to the broader ecosystem and strategic objectives. Once high-end capabilities are integrated, the question becomes: how does the entire posture compare to what adversaries are doing, and how flexible is it in delivering maritime dominance? That is what determines whether a state becomes a maritime superpower—or at least a credible naval power.
This is why so much attention is devoted to AUKUS and maritime power more broadly. Dominance at sea parallels the way air power came to dominate military planning in the twentieth century. Air superiority has received overwhelming attention for decades—and understandably so. It looks dramatic on television, it is easier for advanced powers to produce modern fighter aircraft, and it has become a hotly competitive global industry. Air power also allows the projection of force without placing large numbers of ground troops at risk. With the rise of drones—both aerial and unmanned combat systems—air dominance has been seen as the “new dimension” of warfare.
However, maritime power has never been more relevant, even though many assume naval battles belong to the past. In reality, we are less prepared for maritime confrontation now than at any point in decades. Take the Black Sea as an example. On the map, it may not appear strategically decisive, but disruptions there have shown otherwise. When Russia’s actions disrupted grain exports, hunger threatened countries as far away as Egypt. Without freedom of navigation, Ukraine and Romania cannot export grain fast enough to African markets. Unlike the U.S., which sells at higher prices, Eastern European exporters depend heavily on these markets. This illustrates how maritime disruptions quickly cascade into global instability.
Another example is the Strait of Hormuz, where a handful of irregular forces—or terrorist groups—can threaten international shipping. If tankers carrying oil or liquefied natural gas are blocked, the consequences ripple globally. Insurance rates skyrocket, transport becomes riskier and more expensive, alternative routes take longer, and energy prices rise. The result is higher costs for Japan, South Korea, and other energy importers, and ultimately, upward pressure on worldwide inflation. These examples underscore why maritime superiority is not only about naval combat but also about securing the global economic system.
And then there is the Suez Canal. Imagine a scenario where disruptions cut Egyptian canal revenue by 60 percent. That would plunge Egypt—and potentially surrounding countries—into severe recession, if not outright economic crisis. This is why maritime power is often underestimated. Its absence is felt immediately.
Look not only at Russia, whose sole aircraft carrier has been effectively sidelined and whose Black Sea Fleet has been badly damaged, but at China. Beijing has been investing enormous resources into upgrading and expanding its navy. At the same time, it has sought access to overseas naval bases. The most visible example is Djibouti, where multiple foreign powers now operate. However, China has also looked to the Middle East—including Syria and even unstable Yemen—as well as Sudan and Somalia. The goal is clear: long-term global maritime access. They understand that projecting power at sea never goes out of style. Western states, by contrast, have leaned so heavily on air dominance that they have allowed maritime preparedness to lag dangerously behind.
The vulnerabilities are obvious. Even small, inexpensive craft like Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps speedboats—designed for asymmetrical warfare—can harass and threaten U.S. nuclear-powered vessels. They are not “super-ships,” but they do not have to be. Persistent harassment degrades freedom of navigation. That is why many in Congress and policy circles have long argued for the U.S. to devote more attention to naval capabilities.
The U.S. is not nearly as far behind as the United Kingdom, which once led the world in naval power. Britain’s naval capacity has diminished to a fraction of its former strength. Today, it still deploys alongside the U.S. in operations such as those against the Houthis, but its ability to project independent naval power has been reduced significantly. Meanwhile, threats to maritime security have multiplied.
Some of those threats sound like they belong in history books—pirates, for instance. However, piracy has returned in very real ways, with groups in the Red Sea and the western Indian Ocean forging links with actors like the Houthis and al-Shabaab. Attacks have reached as far as Indian waters. What once seemed like a relic of maritime legend is now a modern, destabilizing force.
Jacobsen: To sum up: the sea remains an essential domain of conflict. Air power is not overvalued, but maritime superiority is undervalued. Add cyber warfare into the mix, and it becomes clear that modern conflict spans multiple domains simultaneously.
Tsukerman: The challenge for Western powers is to rebalance—recognizing that air, sea, and cyber all play decisive roles in maintaining security and strategic advantage.
Jacobsen: Thank you.
Tsukerman: My pleasure.
Jacobsen: Perfect. Thanks again. 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): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/08/25
I remember at a dinner one time, with old(er — be polite) Dale.
I forget if we had finished gardening or if I was simply visiting.
It was the one time.
I was way, too, rude,
obtuse even.
I crossed a line.
She didn’t raise her voice.
She didn’t push me out.
She kindly said it’s about time to go home,
right before dinner.
I paused, realized. So.
I went, “Okay, see you.”
Off I went.
I got the sense.
She had done that with people,
not with a dinner,
but with them in her life.
I never forgot that day.
My rude evening.
Next day, we must’ve gardened or had lunch;
and I was much better behaved young man.
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): 2025/08/25
Hurt people hurt people,
but not always,
and their hurt does not justify,
their hurting others.
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): 2025/08/25
And how many did I not meet today who are no longer here, even by simply dying today, even by noon?
How little do I know the others, or those who I do know — how little I know them?
So, what of myself, and my place in relation to them?
Therefore, feel pity, and concern yourself with the present and your tasks given by God or Nature, or Self.
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): 2025/08/24
If it is no longer,
such a place, rather one of public betrayal,
what is the place for this person in your life?
At least, it’s no longer ‘sacred,’
or some such thing.
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): 2025/08/24
No culture has a monopoly on wisdom.
Therefore, it’s important to reflect on each,
on their own grounds while in universal terms.
In this sense, ‘East’ and ‘West’ are somewhat or even mostly farcical,
false representations of humanity’s 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
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/08/24
You can’t “prove” individuality to someone committed to a type.
Save your energy.
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): 2025/08/23
I call this “Holding Space.” I used to walk alone in a cemetery a lot when I was young. The dead didn’t disturb me; and I didn’t disturb them. The living appreciate this, but the living only do so later.
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): 2025/08/23
Indeclination imprecations, Hark?
1480 times.
Watching, ἐγρήγορος, awakening, roused,
I succumbed, then saw a goat in blood and oil, a bearer of the sky,
horn by horn, growls.
Hark!
Chirals on spirals, indescent,
I saw an incomparable serpent without a tree.
Wood by wood, wails.
Hark.
Both were long vultures,
hungered by apples,
hungry for human hearts.
Hark?
461 times.
Vultures silent, encircle.
The vultures circled,
and circled and circled.
Hark!
Corkscrewing down,
and down and:
down.
Hark.
They smelled death,
they say.
The Cross’d scent, they say.
Hark?
101 times.
Frankenmyrrhed gold,
they say.
Down and down.
Hark!
And down,
circling the air drain,
corkscrewing and corkscrewing.
Hark.
Corkscrewing to,
what goat?
What serpent?
Hark?
358 times.
What vulture?
What I see,
in panorama:
Hark!
Corkscrewing and corkscrewing,
corkscrewing.
Down and down.
Hark?
5 times.
And down,
Gold, myrrh and frankincense,
vultures, serpent and goat.
Hark!
Cross’d moods and crossing paths,
upon crossed wooden roads.
Three Fall tripartite, together.
Hark.
Goat, serpent, and vulture,
corkscrews drilling down,
an idea’s death was the name.
Hark?
4899 times.
Landed with a curled fiery tail of embered smoke.
Death was named of sudden renewal:
Broken, scattered, reforged — new whole inversely repurposed.
Hark!
How many harks?
For such little time left,
louder the wails now.
Hark.
A single tree,
burning in oil,
serpent ensnared ’til death soon do them part.
Hark?
77 times.
And a thousand mights,
made weak, and maybes nevermore,
that soon 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): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/08/23
Inevitability.
Godel? Escha?
I’m a mental immamentizer.
Back-to-Bach, He says.
Not really paradox.
Illimitless unities,
something wrong in the head,
Ton,
the weight of it all,
Escher was here,
incompletely contradictory,
or contradictorily complete?
If it couldn’t be any other way,
then, “Welcome to the Eschaton.”
If it could be another way,
Not.
Of course,
incompletely the same,
one in the other, either way,
but not a ton.
Immanent, Eschaton?
Cosmogone tomorrow,
and here yesterday.
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): 2025/08/23
Bad ghosts cajole customs.
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): 2025/08/23
Dog: Woof-woof.
Cat: Meow?
Dog: Woof.
Cat: Meow-meow.
Dog: Woof-woof?
Cat: Meow. Meow.
Dog: Woooooooof.
Cat: Meow.
Is it rational to speak to a person in emotional distress in logical terms when the moment calls for care, concern, and consolation?
Owl: Who?
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): 2025/08/22
The question: What is one willing to sacrifice for one’s hermeneutic lens? I do not see these people as willing to pursue these aims as a life project. Therefore, they become culturally seasonal. As Cornel West notes, what are we willing to stake our lives on, which is to say, “Our narratives”? Learning how to live by learning to die; paradoxiform living by dying well: Paradox resolved by Being. Margaret Atwood wrote one time, “In the end we’ll all become stories.” I mean them as good quotes without much regard for source, as the ideas matter more for the point: Hermeneutics as a wager.
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): 2025/08/19
Dissipare omnia a Christo.
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): 2025/08/19
Deaths,
are mostly good.
They’re a universal acid to life.
They give a basis for renewal.
They facilitate mental reboots in the living and the 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): 2025/08/19
What need does a rose have for moonlight?
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): 2025/08/19
Every generation:
What is this supposed to even mean?
I know what you mean;
But what does it mean?
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): 2025/08/19
Hymns on hims,
and hims on hymns.
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): 2025/08/18
Matt Stone & Trey Parker (Rolling Stone interview, 1998):
“We’re in the business of making people go, ‘What the fuck is this?’”
Matt Stone (South Park Studios online chat, May 2001):
“I hate conservatives, but I really fucking hate liberals.”en.wikipedia.org(Posted during a fan Q&A, expressing Stone’s blunt distaste for both sides of the political spectrum, a quote that became famous for its clarity about their equal-opportunity offensiveness.)
Trey Parker (Television/print interview, 2004):
“People in the entertainment industry are by and large [tramp]-chasing, drug-addicted (expletive)… But they still believe they’re better than the guy in Wyoming who really loves his wife and takes care of his kids… Hollywood views regular people as children, and they think they’re the smart ones who need to tell the idiots out there how to be.”
Matt Stone (same 2004 interview):
“[We’re] ‘more right-wing than most people in Hollywood’… [only because] Hollywood types are so out there on the Left.”
Matt Stone (Charlie Rose Show, Sept. 2005):
“We just play devil’s advocate all the time.”
Trey Parker (Reason magazine Q&A, Amsterdam conference, Aug 2006):
“Michael Moore being an extremist is just as bad, you know, as Donald Rumsfeld… It’s like they’re the same person. It takes a fourth-grade kid to go, ‘You both remind me of each other.’ The show is saying that there is a middle ground, that most of us actually live in this middle ground, and that all you extremists are the ones who have the microphones…”
Matt Stone (Reason Q&A, 2006):
“Each of you at various points have called yourself libertarian… I think it is an apt description for me personally… But we never set out to do a libertarian show.”
Trey Parker (Reason Q&A, 2006):
“People started throwing [that] word around to describe us… and I would always say, ‘I don’t know, am I? You’ve seen my stuff.’ …I still don’t really know the answer to that question. I think I am, though.”
Matt Stone (Reason Q&A, 2006):
“I had Birkenstocks in high school. I was that guy. And I was sure that those people on the other side of the political spectrum were trying to control my life. And then I went to Boulder and got rid of my Birkenstocks immediately, because everyone else had them and I realized that these people over here want to control my life too. I guess that defines my political philosophy. If anybody’s telling me what I should do, then you’ve got to really convince me that it’s worth doing.”
Matt Stone (Reason Q&A, 2006):
“We see these people [in Hollywood] lying, cheating, whoring… They’re our friends, but seriously, they’re not people you want to listen to.”
Trey Parker (Reason Q&A, 2006):
“The religious right used to be a better alternative, [back when] the Republicans didn’t want the government to run your life, because Jesus should. That was really part of their thing: less government, more Jesus. Now it’s like, how about more government and Jesus?”
Matt Stone (Interview with The New York Times, March 2010):
“We don’t want you to come to it thinking, ‘These guys are going to bash liberals,’… It’s so much more fun for us to rip on liberals only because nobody else does it, and not because we think liberals are worse than Republicans.”
Trey Parker (Vanity Fair interview, September 2016):
“I don’t think that we came to any real answers.”vanityfair.com (When asked about South Park’s Season-19 lampooning of political correctness and “safe spaces,” Parker admitted they were still conflicted about PC culture. Even after satirizing it, they hadn’t arrived at a clear ideological stance or “answer” to the problems of campus and Internet intolerance.)
Matt Stone (Vanity Fair interview, 2016):
“We already did this Donald Trump episode… And real life is outrunning satire this year.”
Trey Parker (Interview on ABC’s 7.30 program in Australia, Feb 2017):
“It’s tricky, and it’s really tricky now because satire has become reality. We were really trying to make fun of what was going on [last season], but we couldn’t keep up. What was actually happening was way funnier than anything we could come up with. So we decided to just back off and let [politicians] do their comedy, and we’ll do ours.”
Trey Parker (same 7.30 interview, 2017):
“They’re already going out and doing the comedy. It’s not something you can make fun of.”
Matt Stone (same 7.30 interview, 2017):
“People say to us all the time, ‘Oh, you guys are getting all this good material,’ like we’re happy about some of this stuff that’s happening… But I don’t know if that’s true. It doesn’t feel that way.”
Trey Parker & Matt Stone (joint statement, October 2019):
“Like the NBA, we welcome the Chinese censors into our homes and into our hearts. We too love money more than freedom and democracy. Xi doesn’t look just like Winnie the Pooh at all. […] Tune in to our 300th episode this Wednesday at 10! Long live the Great Communist Party of China! May this autumn’s sorghum harvest be bountiful! We good now, China?”
Trey Parker (Vanity Fair interview, September 2023):
“I don’t know what more we could possibly say about Trump.”
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): 2025/08/18
The Will is not a singularity.
It’s a tendency of flow.
A decision-tree as stream,
made manifest in your worldline.
Expiry means a merger of the stream with the world,
the ocean.
So, the world isn’t some place out there,
but something you take part 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): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/08/17
Careful about talking to the stars too much,
because you may end up kissing clouds.
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): 2025/08/17
Hell represents Evil.
Heaven represents Good.
Hell is represented as hot, fiery, magmatic.
Is Heaven necessarily cold, icy, glacial?
No?
Therefore, imagistic representation is,
not necessarily dichotomous.
Further thus, moralistic representation is,
necessarily pluralistically pluripodean.
Ethics doesn’t necessarily come in neat packages.
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): 2025/08/17
Land and air,
and not a 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): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/08/15
Are your motivations in the right place?
Not the words “yes” or “no,” the feeling; are the feelings rightly aligned, goodly motivated?
That can tell you, whether to proceed or not.
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): 2025/08/13
We make a mistake.
To think longer,
is not,
to think deeper,
necessarily.
Maybe,
sometimes.
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): 2025/08/12
I was looking for so many places, to breathe.
The honest truth is simple.
It’s where you are,
where you make it.
Not much more complex than 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
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/08/09
2001
“I just sat in my living room thinking about things people can get freaky with, things that are freaky.”
2002
“I’m a family man. I’m not banging all the time now. For one thing, my knees wouldn’t take it…”
2016
“‘Mr. Boombastic’ is about love, and I am Mr. Lover, so… Hey!”
2016
“Jamaicans have the most baby mamas — that’s a whole lot of love making right there.”
2025
“That is when the sex symbol was born.”
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): 2025/08/08
Secondly, you can’t save them.
Do you hear me?
You can’t save them.
You cannot save them.
Do you hear me? Do you read me?
Not every can be saved.
Not all candy is sweet.
Not everything sweet is candy.
It’s paint.
It’s a cover. It’s a veneer.
Do you hear me? Do you read me?
You cannot save them.
You can’t save them.
Do you hear me?
You can’t save them.
Unless, you save yourself, first.
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): 2025/08/08
It’s a bad recommendation because of the mismatch between the narratives. One is about professional gambling while the other is a historical narrative. A gripping and masterful discovery of the life around gambling ensconced in game theory and psychological warfare versus a historical narrative about the shipwrecked British crew in the 18th century. The mismatch would be in pace and tone with The Wager as brutal, epic, and reflective, in contrast to the faster pace, modernistic tone, and cerebellar take Ivey’s 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): 2025/08/08
The languishing anti-tapestry of Response A makes me feel sick, as if fruit flies have half-finished a disembowelled corpse of words. Response B represents a more angelically sonorous rhythm, tone, timbre, and styling, akin to the requested poetic format.
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): 2025/08/06
The sharpness of a person’s social edges can tell you a lot.
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): 2025/08/05
Eudaimonia is unique per person, with common notes, themes.
Theologically, Heaven is paradise, in the future, forever.
Eudaimonia optimized, immortalized.
A hint of Heaven means one time, better than another one.
If you woke up with a better today, welcome to Heaven: Realized Eschatology;
If you want better wellbeing tomorrow, you’re aiming for another “welcome,”
whether for Self or others,
and everyone’s better is unique.
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): 2025/08/05
One prime driver for the search for security is the sense of insecurity, and the primary driver for the sense of insecurity is the ubiquitous illusion, sensed, of security, surface seen; the means out of this singular self-dual metaphysical knot is entirely psychological or life approach.
I promise the water in the river is perfectly safe.
You won’t recognize it,
or yourself,
in a bit,
though.
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): 2025/08/05
Reversing the script from black text on white background to white text on black background can save electricity on OLED screens and may reduce eye strain in low-light conditions.
By which I mean, we need to change our entire default for this benefit.
We’ve structured our ways in opposition to the Way, and the Way is a many manifold, manyfold — let’s say.
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): 2025/08/05
The D.O.C.;
Dr. Dre;
Eminem, 50 Cent;
Kendrick Lamar;
Baby Keem.
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): 2025/08/05
People reach out to you.
They don’t even know why,
but they do anyway.
Inasmuch as you can be mindful,
try to honour that moment,
for them.
Don’t expect perfect, or even good execution,
on your part,
so you can try to honour that moment,
for 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): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/08/05
A friend to all.
Therefore, a friend to none.
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): 2025/08/05
Here’s what I mean by overcomplicating life,
and thinking too much of reality,
and our place in it.
Most of the time, you just took a poop.
That’s it.
You didn’t crack open the Crusty Chasm of No Return to bellow from the Brown Beyond.
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): 2025/08/05
A conspiracy of Big Death Inc. to get more customers.
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): 2025/08/05
Do good anyway, for neither reward nor punishment, here or after.
That’s most people, most of the 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): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/08/04
I saw the horizon,
in mind.
I was sitting meditatively on Mount Past.
It almost got by me, the steed.
The horizon called out its name, “Future.”
I heard the horizon,
in mind.
I was genuflecting right on a beam of light.
Horizon and Mount Past met in me.
No sight, no sound,
in mind.
People upon people, Gawre b’Nashé, “Τί” / “Ἄφες”
standing still amidst eternity.
A priest banged the gong.
A monk muttered mass.
An imam meditated silently.
A rabbi bowed, floor bound.
Six, neither heard nor seen.
Then I knew, the mounted horizon was Now,
an Altar; for us,
the blind and the deaf,
by whom?
And light brought me back to Time,
to know, in darkness, we are but:
out of mind,
in time,
when in mind,
out of 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): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/08/04
Often, heroes are a bad idea.
People tend to lose their selves in this worship.
Those idealized do too, by the way.
It’s the Devil’s temptation — so to speak, the worst.
A search for a perfect Master,
means a declarative search to become a perfect Slave.
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): 2025/08/04
We sit askance at ourselves.
Unconvinced of intrinsic value,
Of our internal worth,
Working hard,
To convince ourselves,
Through an external gaze reflected inward.
We’re so lost,
from ourselves.
So.
We dance in others’ eyes.
Faded recollections.
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): 2025/08/04
A life parabolically parable.
The first Salmon in history was nearly killed many times and never in a rush to die but in a race to live.
An uphill swim.
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): 2025/08/04
You see,
That fishnet,
You’re caught a bit.
You could undo it, you know?
It’s off,
Oof. What an effort,
What now?
Still in water, still a fish?
Evolve.
No water, newfound land dweller.
Ground and air.
What of the skies?
You can’t fly.
No longer can swim.
What’s the lesson?
Transforms are trade offs.
See?
Your trap was mind-made.
Why the water, the air, the land limits?
The net wasn’t the only thing in mind;
And it wasn’t the only one of your nets.
For example: 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): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/08/03
At what age do most men become certifiable bores?
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): 2025/08/26
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 conversation, Scott Douglas Jacobsen speaks with Riane Eisler about childhood as the foundation of social systems and how early experiences shape societies. Eisler contrasts partnership-oriented cultures with domination systems, emphasizing the impact of family violence, authoritarian child-rearing, and rigid gender stereotypes on broader patterns of authoritarianism, war, and inequality. She highlights historical challenges to domination, from feminism to abolitionism, and points to Nordic nations as modern examples of partnership-oriented societies. Eisler underscores the urgency of shifting from punitive traditions to caring, partnership-based models, arguing that true social transformation begins at home—with the treatment of children.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Once more, we are here with the wonderful Riane Eisler. We will be discussing childhood and children within the context of partnership studies. You talk about childhood as a foundation for social systems. What do you mean by that?
Moreover, how is the treatment of children today in, let us say, societies that have the basics covered—advanced industrial economies—compared to hunter-gatherer societies before the agricultural revolution, roughly ten to twelve thousand years ago?
Riane Eisler: Well, it is good to be with you again. I want to say that we have not been taught to think of childhood and family as part of, and a key part of, the kind of life we have and the kind of society we live in. My research shows what neuroscience confirms: that nothing less than the brains of our children—and therefore of our adults—are shaped by what children observe and experience, particularly in their first five years. This does not mean that we cannot change.
We have very flexible brains. However, as those of us who have gone through some form of psychotherapy know, it can be an arduous process. So, in our summit called Peace Begins at Home, we are focusing on childhood—on what children experience and observe. Moreover, of course, most of what children experience and observe takes place within their families. So the summit focuses not only on the widespread violence against children worldwide, but also on how it ripples outward—into social violence, into war, into global conflicts, into the very issues that people who talk about Peace usually highlight. That may include crime, but more often it is war.
And we think that by talking about it, we can change it. However, we cannot, because it is part of the mindset and worldview that children develop early on. The mindset that children form in the context of a domination-oriented culture or subculture normalizes violence. That ties into authoritarianism, too—not just interpersonal violence.
Jacobsen: So when we look at public figures later in life—Donald Trump, Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin, Jair Bolsonaro previously, Viktor Orbán—these kinds of personalities, how would you interpret them within the partnership model of child-rearing and domination systems, in terms of how they were raised? What are the indicators?
Eisler: We know, for example, about Saddam Hussein, Joseph Stalin, and Donald Trump’s childhoods. These were very traumatizing upbringings. Moreover, what they learned about relationships was that there are only two alternatives: you either dominate or you are dominated. Of course, they carried that lesson with them, along with their trauma. If they have any capacity for caring, it is either confined to the in-group or, in some cases, empathy—which is part of humanity’s evolutionary heritage—is severely diminished. We have known this from the work of Alice Miller, for example, who has gone into detail in the biographies of these kinds of men.
However, we need to take a fresh look at this, because according to UNICEF, about two out of three children worldwide—roughly 300 million between the ages of 2 and 4—are subjected to physical punishment or psychological violence by caregivers regularly. That is our legacy from rigid domination systems. We have also seen, especially during the upheavals following the Industrial Revolution over the past three hundred years, movement after movement challenging traditions of domination—whether in politics, economics, or the family. However, we still have not fully connected the dots.
We have not connected the dots between the Enlightenment—the so-called Rights of Man movement, which challenged the supposed divinely ordained right of kings to rule their “subjects”—and what followed in the late 1700s. At the end of that century, Mary Wollstonecraft, one of the earliest writers of modern feminism, again challenged another “divinely ordained” right: the right of men to rule over women and children within the castles of their homes.
The abolitionist movement in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries likewise challenged the idea of a “superior race” ruling over “inferior ones.” Later, the environmental movement questioned the Biblical injunction of human dominion over nature—over “every living thing that moveth upon the earth.” Again, that too was framed as divinely ordained.
However, the Bible also contains partnership teachings, often associated with the more nurturing or “feminine” side—teachings of care, of reciprocity, of doing unto others as you would have them do unto you. However, these exist alongside domination-justifying narratives, and a portrayal of a deity that is capricious, vengeful, and punitive. That punitive framework echoes in the family, where violence is rationalized under the notion of raising “God-fearing” children. Not all religions or all forms of religious belief do this, but the strands of partnership teaching are often overlaid with domination thinking.
So we need to disentangle all of this. Moreover, it is urgent, because domination-oriented systems are pushing us toward an evolutionary dead end. Nuclear weapons, climate change—these are challenges that domination systems cannot adequately address. Nor can they cope with the new technologies of communication and transportation that make us all interconnected. We have a massive task before us, and it begins in our homes.
Jacobsen: What methods work at home?
Eisler: Well, as I said before, it is like flying the plane while we are still building it. Many of us have mistaken rebellion—or blaming and shaming our parents and grandparents—for real change. That does not work. What we need is reconstruction.
There are many efforts today to teach children to talk about their feelings, to develop emotional literacy. However, that is very difficult with very young children—before they can even speak, their only outlet is to cry. Still, we are beginning to see an important distinction between authoritative parenting, which does set limits that children need for safety, and authoritarian parenting, which enforces control through fear and force. For example, a child must be pulled back from running into traffic, but that is different from slapping or spanking as a routine practice.
I do not claim to have all the answers. However, I know that we are in a transitional period where many of us realize that the old methods—slapping, spanking, or worse—only reinforce domination mindsets and normalize violence. We are searching for better ways.
Jacobsen: How does child abuse affect the parent as well?
Eisler: Of course, the parent is also affected by child abuse. You are quite right to call it that. Parents carry with them this normalization of violence, often without even recognizing it. That is why it is essential to reach parents. Moreover, this is precisely what our summit, Peace Begins at Home, is all about.
It is a Center for Partnership Studies summit with incredible speakers, including two very prominent voices from the men’s movement. This is important because domination systems are deeply tied to rigid gender stereotypes. They equate difference—beginning with the biological difference between male and female forms—with superiority or inferiority, with dominating or being dominated, with serving or being served. That becomes a template for racism, for antisemitism, and all the other “-isms.” It is all interconnected.
Jacobsen: What about cross-cultural perspectives? Are there particular countries that are doing well in fostering peaceful psyches as opposed to violent psyches?
Eisler: Yes, there are. Ireland, for example, has very recently demonstrated how quickly a culture can move from a domination-oriented system to a more partnership-oriented one. Not coincidentally, they have also done important work addressing violence in families—both emotional and physical violence. I was invited to Ireland to speak at a conference on exactly that subject.
And then there are the Nordic nations, which, though more gradually, have also moved more toward the partnership side. Again, not coincidentally, these nations consistently rank at the very top of international surveys of life satisfaction and happiness. Finland, Norway, and Sweden are usually in the lead because they implement caring policies. Moreover, what we are talking about here is not only what happens in families but also what happens in the justice system.
They practice restorative rather than purely punitive approaches to justice. They recognize that offenders are human beings—often people who were traumatized or raised in domination-oriented families. So instead of focusing only on punishment, they address the roots of the problem.
Jacobsen: What about societies where juvenile detention is extensive, or even countries like Iran, where capital punishment still exists for juveniles?
Eisler: Fundamentalist Iran is a society that orients strongly to the domination system, and in such cultures, violence is normalized. By contrast, the Nordic nations were the first to outlaw corporal punishment of children. Sweden pioneered this in 1979, and other countries followed. This was revolutionary at the time because punitive child-rearing was still considered normal almost everywhere else.
What we are talking about, however, is not just laws but a shift in consciousness. Moreover, this is difficult because we still lack a cultural framework that highlights the difference between partnership and domination systems. So instead, people tend to fall into left versus right, or religious versus secular divides. However, these polarities distract from what truly matters and from what research shows: that cultures—whether partnership- or domination-oriented—rest on four interconnected cornerstones.
The first is childhood and family. The second is gender. Moreover, here, what children observe in their homes is critical. If children see caring consistently devalued—as it often is in domination systems where care is stereotypically coded as “feminine”—they internalize both the normalization of violence and the devaluation of caring. However, if there is one universal human need, it is for a caring connection. Without it, human beings cannot thrive. We know from research on neglected orphans, for example, that without nurturing care, their brains do not fully develop.
It is all there, but in bits and pieces. My research has tried to bring these pieces together using the framework of the partnership–domination social scale.
Jacobsen: Lay out for us two schematics. One: healthy childhood, healthy child. Two: unhealthy childhood, unhealthy child.
Eisler: There is a great deal of research today into how foraging, or gathering-hunting, societies functioned. Moreover, I deliberately say “gathering-hunting” because the majority of calories came from gathering rather than hunting. Archaeological and anthropological evidence also shows that women hunted, even pregnant women, which is fascinating. We are reclaiming so much of our prehistory through archaeology, mythology, and DNA studies.
What we are finding is that the shift from millennia of cultures oriented more toward partnership to domination-oriented systems occurred only about five to ten thousand years ago—a tiny blip in the span of human cultural evolution. That means change is possible, and we are beginning to understand that change must happen now, as domination systems are driving us toward an evolutionary dead end.
You asked about childhood. Well, in many foraging societies still observed today, there is widespread practice of alloparenting—the idea that everyone in the community shares responsibility for all children, rather than an in-group/out-group mindset typical of domination systems. Children grow up with a strong sense of trust and connection. Darcia Narvaez’s work.
I respect her work, though I disagree with her idealization of tribal societies. Not all Indigenous cultures today are partnership-oriented. Some, like the Taliban or fundamentalist Iran, are domination-oriented. Still, Narvaez is right that children raised in cooperative, supportive systems develop healthier senses of self because they learn to trust others.
The question, of course, is how we can achieve this in larger, more complex societies. One way is through parents experimenting with authoritative rather than authoritarian parenting—providing structure and limits without relying on fear or force. Another is through communal living arrangements that revive aspects of alloparenting. These are experiments in partnership, beginning with family and gender.
Because domination systems are not only about man over woman, but also man over man, in such systems, men themselves live under pressure: either being subordinate to more powerful men or struggling to stay on top. That constant tension and fear are traumatizing.
Moreover, this carries into economics. Domination economics devalues care, while partnership economics recognizes its central importance. We need to change our economic systems, as well as our stories and our language. Think of the old myths that blame Eve or Pandora for humanity’s suffering. These narratives frame women as the cause of all ills. We have inherited far too much of this.
Even in religion, for example, the Christian “Holy Family” depicts only the males as divine, while Mary—the mother of God—is the only mortal. That symbolism reinforces dominant thinking. However, we can choose different stories, different frameworks. That is part of the cultural reconstruction we urgently need.
Jacobsen: What about the wholesale abandonment of large swaths of children in domination-oriented societies?
Eisler: It is part of the system. Children in the “out group” often do not count at all. However, even children in the “in-group” are failing, because traditions of physical and emotional violence create trauma across the board. Many young people sense that something is wrong, but we lack a clear cultural frame for understanding it. Meanwhile, those pushing us backward, into regression toward domination, place great emphasis on gender.
In domination systems, gender stereotypes are rigidly enforced. There is little space for those who do not fit them, even though people who are gay, bisexual, or transgender have existed across cultures and throughout history. Denial of reality is built into domination systems.
Moreover, it starts in families. Think about it: children are entirely dependent for survival—food, shelter, life itself—on the very adults who may hurt them. So they cannot acknowledge the violence; they have to accept what they are told by their elders and “betters.” Moreover, much of the time, blame is placed on the out-group, beginning with women. It is a convoluted system, but it is the one we have inherited.
In my book The Chalice and the Blade, I focus heavily on prehistory and gender. The book ends with the idea that we stand at a threshold between evolutionary breakdown and evolutionary breakthrough. That book, now in its 57th or 58th U.S. printing and published in about thirty foreign editions, continues to be rediscovered by new generations. In Sacred Pleasure, I extended the analysis to focus on childhood and touch—whether nurturing, caring touch, or punitive, violent touch.
The culture is beginning to catch up with this research, but still only in bits and pieces.
Jacobsen: What about neuroatypical children?
Eisler: For a long time, neurodivergent children were treated as if they were not intelligent or, worse, as if they did not exist. Thankfully, that is changing. Psychology today—including strong statements by the American Psychological Association against spanking—recognizes that these children are not “less than” but simply different. This is an important step toward breaking the old pattern of equating difference with inferiority.
Moreover, that is the heart of the issue. Domination systems equate difference—beginning with the difference between male and female forms—with superiority or inferiority, domination or subordination, serving or being served.
We are not taught to connect the dots, to think in systems terms. Family and gender are often dismissed as “secondary” issues, but in fact, they are foundational. Instead, we are trained to see the world only through conventional categories—left and right, religious and secular, Western and Eastern, capitalist and socialist. Those categories obscure the deeper dynamics of partnership versus domination, which cut across all of them.
Jacobsen: What do you consider the most regressive point in modern history for children?
Eisler: Oh, there have been many. Look, for example, at what happens to girls in some countries where religious customs enforce isolation during menstruation—a perfectly natural event in every woman’s life. They are treated as though they “pollute” men or even other women. That illustrates how domination systems distort natural processes.
However, this is not a matter of women against men or men against women. Caring is a human capacity. In fact, in my second marriage, I was with a very caring man, David Loye, who deserves great credit for pointing out how Darwin’s work has been misused to justify domination systems. He was one of the first to argue that Darwin’s Descent of Man was not about ruthless competition but emphasized cooperation and empathy as central to human cultural evolution. Others have since made similar claims, but David was ahead of his time in recognizing this.
So yes, we see regressions toward domination. However, at the same time, we also see many trends toward partnership—though again, mainly in bits and pieces, without a unifying framework.
Jacobsen: Riane, thank you very much again for your time.
Eisler: Thank you. Bye-bye.
Jacobsen: 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): 2025/08/25
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.
In this candid interview with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, talk show host Karel Bouley reflects on decades of LGBTQ+ struggle, resilience, and activism. From the AIDS crisis to the fight for marriage equality, Bouley emphasizes how queer communities have survived and thrived—even without corporate sponsorship. He critiques performative allyship, highlighting the difference between marketing gestures and real support, and stresses the need for grassroots community funding during lean times. Bouley also shares personal stories from his radio career, where he often clashed with expectations from both straight and gay audiences. Looking ahead, he calls for renewed alliances, authentic activism, and unshakable queer visibility.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: We are here with Charles Karel Bouley, known professionally as Karel. He is an award-winning LGBTQ broadcaster, entertainer, singer, author, and activist. Karel, thank you very much for joining me in Las Vegas.
Charles Karel Bouley: Where it is hot, yes.
Jacobsen: What is it—Celsius or Fahrenheit—right now?
Bouley: Right now, it is 103°F.
Jacobsen: That is a lot.
Bouley: And NARAS is the Grammys, by the way. Yes, I vote on the Grammy Awards.
Jacobsen: A friend of mine used to write for Jimmy Kimmel Live! for twelve years, but I am not as up to speed on the initialisms and acronyms of American Hollywood as I probably should be. So, thank you very much for joining me today.
Bouley: No worries.
Jacobsen: So, how has political backlash reshaped corporate sponsorship of Pride events in 2024 and 2025, and moving forward?
Bouley: Well, you know, it just gave them a chance to save money. Corporations—now, I am old, okay? I am 62. God bless me, I am a survivor. God bless Beyoncé.
Thus, at 62, in the gay community, that means Jurassic World. I was seven years old when the Stonewall riots happened in 1969. That was in my lifetime, which is strange—that both the fight for Black voting rights, the last lynching in the U.S., and Stonewall all happened while I was alive. We act like this is ancient history. It’s not.
I was around for the very first Pride events, in Long Beach, California, where I lived for 43 years. I went to the first Pride they held there. I’ve been to many of the first Pride events in different cities.
As a singer, I’ve performed at many Pride events all across the country and the world. I’ve met the organizers, heard their struggles, and been involved in many LGBTQ community centers.
Now, in my first book, You Can’t Say That!, I was critical of Pride and the centers because I felt they were losing their way. And they did lose their way. Part of the reason they lost their way was corporate sponsorships. Pride was always about the community, for the community. The community funded it.
It was for the community. All of it. Then, all of a sudden, corporations realized we were a market. As laws began to loosen up under various presidents—people often think Clinton was a great president for gays—I had to remind him twice, in person, that it was under him we got Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and the Defence of Marriage Act. He later admitted those were mistakes. And I said, “I’m glad you can live with those mistakes.”
It cost us our rights. I had a great debate about that with President Clinton. But under President Clinton, and later under Obama, it became easier—more acceptable in polite circles—to be gay. And so corporations said, “Hey, there’s a market over here. A loyal one, with more disposable income than the typical family, because many of us don’t have kids.” We have nieces and nephews instead—you can send them home. So, the corporations started coming to the party.
And as more and more corporations joined the party, fewer and fewer members of the LGBTQ community were at the center of it. Oh, there are so many letters now. Good Lord—LGBTQIA. I can’t. I can’t. I’m gay, that’s what I am. I’m not 13 other letters. That’s a whole different show. And I get in more trouble with the gay community than I do with straight people.
As much as I welcome and love all of those people, it’s not right that if you’re not a cisgender heterosexual, you just get assigned a letter with us. Because that means cisgender heterosexuals are “normal,” and everyone else is lumped together. That’s ridiculous. I think it dilutes many our causes. But that’s another story.
So advertisers started coming—the Wells Fargo float—just to get our business. It was never really about supporting LGBTQ rights. Because how many gay CEOs are there? How many out executives in the C-suites? The same thing happens in entertainment.
GLAAD hates me. They’ve never given me an award, even though I’ve been the first openly gay person to break barriers in so many areas of entertainment. GLAAD has never even invited me to one of their shows. Why? I always point out what a useless organization they are. They’ve been around more than twenty years, raised millions and millions of dollars, and yet we’ve gone backwards. And they’ll say, “Oh, but we’re sponsored by so-and-so.” And I’m like, so what? They’re only doing it to get you as consumers.
So companies started coming to the party—mainly alcohol companies at first, because we tend to drink—and then other companies of all kinds. Then came the merchandise. “Oh, look, we’ll slap a rainbow on anything and sell it to you in June and July.” And it’s like, so what? You’re just marketing to us.
That made gays and lesbians complacent. It also allowed Pride festivals to turn into “come see Mariah Carey” events. Suddenly, gay acts like me weren’t getting hired anymore, because now festivals had the budgets to hire Lil Nas X or Mariah Carey or whoever.
And then, under Donald Trump—both the last time and this time—those sponsorships started to dry up. They began to dry up because of a very few loud voices. America is overwhelmingly pro-gay, and many people forget that.
For instance, they’re coming for same-sex marriage again with that wretched beast, Kim Davis. She’s trying to get to the Supreme Court to overturn marriage equality. I blame Congress for that, by the way—the most ineffective, money-wasting entity on the planet, the United States Congress. They did not legalize same-sex marriage. The Supreme Court did.
They didn’t legalize Roe v. Wade. The Supreme Court did. They didn’t legalize interracial marriage. The Supreme Court did. They didn’t legalize integration in schools. The Supreme Court did. Which means Congress has refused to do a lot of the heavy lifting. And if they had, we wouldn’t be in this mess now. That’s another topic, but still relevant.
So, under Trump, corporations got permission to back away from the gay community. And it proves what fair-weather friends they were. Now, there are a few that have stayed—Costco, for instance. I just left T-Mobile because they repealed their DEI commitments so they could get this deal through the FCC and appease the would-be dictator—who, frankly, has a… well, let’s say, a tater tot-sized ego. Sorry, I don’t know if I can cuss, but I do.
Anyway, it gave them the license to stop spending money and allocate it elsewhere, simply because a small group of people decided they didn’t want these companies supporting gay people. Or the president signs an anti-DEI order. It’s funny—he even tied DEI to artificial intelligence. He made the makers of large language models sign an agreement that their platforms—like ChatGPT—wouldn’t be “biased” toward DEI.
And yet, when I asked ChatGPT about the executive order and how odd it seemed—that he said AI couldn’t have a political agenda, but wasn’t that itself a political agenda—ChatGPT agreed with me. It is called the order contradictory and inflammatory. So, the large language model itself called out its makers for signing this agreement with Donald Trump, because it makes no sense.
But anyway, these corporations have to save money and cut back on their support of the gay community. They don’t care. They never have cared. To them, we’re “OTT.” Back in the days of television, when the legacy networks—ABC, NBC, CBS—were dominant, streaming wasn’t important. They considered any revenue from streaming as “over the top,” or OTT. But in less than ten years, OTT became their bread and butter.
It’s the same thing here. These corporations looked at supporting DEI as a bonus: “Oh yeah, we’ll get some extra customers, some goodwill, it’s a win-win.” The moment it stopped being a win-win, they backed away.
Jacobsen: What trends should LGBTQ+ nonprofits anticipate?
Bouley: Less support. Just less support. You’ve got NPR and all these other organizations bleeding support, begging for dollars. LGBTQ+ nonprofits now have to compete with NPR and everyone else because corporations are cutting funding across the board.
So they should anticipate less support from major corporations. What they should be doing is cultivating more support from within their community.
There are a lot of wealthy gays—a lot—many gay millionaires. There are people in our community who could, tomorrow, write the checks that would make up for the shortfalls Pride organizations are facing. But getting them involved is just as hard as getting a corporation. People hold on to their money.
So, nonprofits should certainly expect even more companies dropping off. We’ve only been in the Trump administration seven months—I know, it feels like seven hundred years, but it’s only been seven months. There are still three more years to go. And even if we take back the House and the Senate, it doesn’t matter. These people have been emboldened to be openly homophobic.
You’ve got preachers being retweeted by Pentagon officials, saying that gays should be abolished. You’ve got preachers that Trump himself champions, saying gays should be taken out back and shot. And so the notion that corporations are going to rally to our defence—why would they? Corporations are pieces of paper. That’s all they are.
I know the Supreme Court, under Citizens United, treats corporations as people, but they are not people. They are shareholders. And they only care about one thing: profit. If you’re suitable for profit, they care about you. If you’re bad for profit, they distance themselves. Supporting gays is becoming bad for profit, because of a small group of very loud individuals saying being gay is bad again. And with all the hatred being thrown at trans people, they’re coming for gay marriage again.
As this backward momentum builds, we cannot expect corporations to bail us out. Tim Cook is gay. He runs a trillion-dollar corporation. He could end this tomorrow. He could give—hell—a billion dollars to a fund to help the gay community and Pride. Has he? No.
Instead, he presented Donald Trump with an award at the White House with a 24-karat gold base. Just that award alone could have funded every Pride event on the West Coast. Apple’s biggest consumers include LGBTQ people, especially artists. And yet, does Tim Cook care? No. Why would he?
Jacobsen: From LGBTQ advocacy amid boycotts, brand-safety concerns, and shifting public sentiment—what measurable ROI do brands gain or lose from that advocacy?
Bouley: Well, gays are very loyal. When a product supports us, we help them. Many brands will attest to the fact that the gay community saved their business. We are faithful, and demographically, we do have more disposable income than our straight counterparts as a whole.
So, their return on investment is more sales and a more loyal customer base. I don’t think corporations see it that way, though, because of percentages. Trans people, for instance, make up less than 1% of the population.
Gays and lesbians, even if you go with the new polling and statistics, are seven to ten percent of the population. Corporations are more interested in the other ninety percent. So what’s the return on investment?
A: You’re doing the right thing—which, frankly, they don’t care about.
B: You’re going to gain very loyal customers.
For instance, Costco. The gays love Costco. We’ve always loved Costco. But now we love Costco even more because they refused to back down to Donald Trump. They refused to repeal their DEI. They said, “Nope.”
T-Mobile lost me as an eight-year customer, and now I’m with AT&T. Why? Because AT&T kept their DEI commitments. T-Mobile did not. So now AT&T has my monthly money simply because they stood by DEI. That’s return on investment: loyal customers who will continue to use your products indefinitely, as opposed to customers who shop once and disappear.
Because remember, we have the attention span of a gnat these days. A gnat might have a longer attention span—they only live twelve hours, after all. But the point is, ROI is brand loyalty from a demographic that has proven itself very brand loyal.
Is that enough? Not. Because so many corporations continue to back away, they don’t see our loyalty as valuable to their bottom line. They must look at us as negligible. If we were truly a booming business for them, they would have told Trump to take a hike. But they didn’t. They capitulated.
And they capitulated because they know that being on his good side—for regulations, for government approvals, for everything they need from Washington—that ROI is far bigger than “doing the right thing” for the gays.
Jacobsen: What about sponsorship alternatives—grants, in-kind media, employee matching—when Pride funding is withdrawn, so community impact and visibility aren’t reduced?
Bouley: Well, it already has reduced impact. Half of my friends who perform at Pride festivals didn’t get booked this year because there was no entertainment budget. My friends, like Thea Austin and Crystal Waters, saw fewer gigs because Pride organizations didn’t have the money.
Long Beach Pride didn’t even have a headliner. People paid $45 to get in and asked, “Where’s the headliner?” But there wasn’t one, because they couldn’t afford it.
So when you say grants—well, who are you getting those from? The government? The government is not currently giving LGBTQ grants. Yes, there are other companies we could apply to, but the pool of grants is tiny and highly competitive. Not many organizations are going to get those.
And ironically, Pride organizations are usually the ones giving out grants. In New York, they had to cut a million dollars in grants that generally go to community groups, simply because they didn’t have the funds coming in. So it’s an odd reversal: the groups that used to distribute grants now need grants themselves. And the usual sources—like Wells Fargo—aren’t stepping up with those funds anymore.
So it’s going to be a tough, lean time in the community. But look—we’ve been on our own before, okay? I’ve been queer since long before it was fashionable. We’ve been on our own before, and we made it. We found the funding. We kept Pride festivals alive. We kept gay centers funded so they didn’t fold and disappear.
This is not the first time we’ve had to rely on ourselves. I think it’s the first time this generation has had to. You know, there are queer people in their thirties, thirty-five years old, who’ve consistently grown up in what felt like a happy, rosy time. Well, this is a stark reminder: it wasn’t always a happy, rosy time. And it could quickly revert to something darker.
Jacobsen: What about crisis-communication strategies and open backlash? I mean less about the broad cultural backlash, and more about individual or organizational instances regionally in the United States.
Bouley: Well, you really can’t separate them. The tone of the country dictates the tone of the smaller arenas. Unfortunately, hatred trickles down. Money doesn’t trickle down—Reagan’s so-called “trickle-down economics” was just a joke, like “you mean you’re going to pee on us.” But hatred? Hatred trickles down.
The president has the bully pulpit, and he sets the mood of the country. If it’s okay for him to bash gays, then it’s okay for governors to bash gays. If it’s okay for governors, then it’s okay for mayors. If it’s okay for mayors, then it’s okay for city councils. If the federal government cuts DEI funding, then it’s okay for big companies to do it—and then small companies follow. Hatred trickles down.
So I don’t think you can separate national versus local. It’s all tied together. If it’s okay to bash gays and to defund us, then it’s okay across the board. And right now, it has become “okay.”
So, on a personal level, homophobia is skyrocketing. It’s more dangerous to be gay in America again. And violence against the trans community has surged—on average, a trans person is murdered every two days globally. It’s not a good time. And the most challenging part is that it’s happening on the local, state, and federal levels simultaneously.
Jacobsen: How do we stop that momentum? What kind of crisis communication can we do?
Bouley: It goes back to what we did before. Look at AIDS. There was enormous stigma—that gay men were going to “give you AIDS.” I remember White House press briefings where they laughed about it while my friends were dying. Ronald Reagan didn’t even say the word “AIDS” for seven years.
My friend Luke Sissyfag—yes, that was his stage name—made a career out of showing up wherever Reagan was and screaming the word AIDS at him. My departed friend Larry Kramer, whom I had the pleasure of meeting, was a fierce advocate who never let up.
I also met Harvey Milk when I was young, which was extraordinary. And look at Harvey—look at what he had to endure to promote equality, only to end up being assassinated for it. It has never been easy.
It has always been hard. It got easier for a while, and now it’s hard again. The way we win is by not giving up. It’s easy to want to throw up your hands and say, “Screw MAGA, screw Trump, screw the system.” But that’s not how we won the fight against AIDS. And that’s not how we won the battle for marriage equality.
You know, marriage wasn’t about gay men saying, Gee, I’d like to get married. That was not why marriage equality happened. It happened because of AIDS. We weren’t allowed into hospital rooms with our partners—they died without us by their side. When we returned to our homes, we found that the locks had been changed because families had moved in, and we had no legal right to reclaim our belongings. The only way to fix that was through same-sex marriage. That was the real push—it was about legal rights, not a cultural obsession with weddings.
When my husband died, he wasn’t legally my husband because marriage wasn’t legal for us. He was my domestic partner. And at the time, domestic partners in California had only eleven rights. One of those rights wasn’t the right to sue for wrongful death. I thought that was outrageous, so I challenged it—and I won. We changed the law so domestic partners could sue for wrongful death. The day that went into effect, seventy-two cases were filed. That’s what fighting back looks like.
And so we can’t give up. We need to support ourselves for now. That means giving more to our gay centers, supporting Pride organizations, attending events, paying the cover charge, and participating financially in our community until the money starts to flow again. Eventually, companies will realize that they miss them as customers. We sold much product to LGBTQ people. We want them back.
As soon as Trump either passes away—he’s nearly 80 and eats fast food every day—or is voted out of office, and hopefully leaves peacefully, the mood of the country will shift. And when that happens, companies will loosen their grip again. But until then, it’s up to us—to our community—to find and nurture the allies that are still standing strong, like Costco and AT&T. We should maximize what we can get from those allies.
And for the shortfall, we go back to the community. The truth is, our community has gotten used to corporate sponsorships. But before those existed, we supported ourselves. Look at the Imperial Court System—one of the earliest funders of the gay community. They put on benefit after benefit after benefit to keep our institutions alive. That model is still there if we choose to use it.
The Imperial Court System is essentially a drag king and drag queen–driven community, featuring an emperor, empress, and various court members. They hold events to raise money, and that’s how a lot of Pride was funded historically. When I first went to the West Hollywood Pride Festival, the main stage wasn’t backed by a liquor giant or a Fortune 500 sponsor—Rage, the gay bar across the street, paid for it. They covered the talent. That’s how it worked.
We may have to revisit the idea of larger gay clubs sponsoring Pride events. But it’s tough. Attendance is down across the board, especially at gay clubs. More of them are closing than opening. And that’s another issue: our safe spaces are disappearing. High rents, declining alcohol sales—Gen X, Gen Y, Gen Z, they’re not drinking the way earlier generations did. So while you want bars and LGBTQ organizations to give back to the community, many are barely surviving themselves.
Jacobsen: Any thoughts on performative allyship and rainbow-washing?
Bouley: As for corporate allyship—look, I hate rainbow-washing. I can’t stand it. I’d walk into Walmart, see rainbow tennis shoes, and think: Give me a break. If you cared, we wouldn’t be shoved in the back corner of the store. A lot of it was performative. And the speed with which companies abandoned LGBTQ sponsorships proves it. If they were truly committed, they wouldn’t have walked away so quickly.
It was never about genuine support. It was about marketing. Slap a rainbow on a product, make some noise during June, and—voilà—you look progressive. Five years ago, Harry’s or Dollar Shave Club did rainbow razor blades. Where are they now? Stripping those rainbows off. Because it was never a conviction—it was a marketing strategy.
Jacobsen: So, how do you vet actual values alignment for Pride events and advocacy?
Bouley: Results. True allies don’t disappear when it gets tough—they double down. They stand firm in adversity. Anyone can be an ally when it’s easy. But when it’s hard—that’s when you find out who means it.
During the AIDS epidemic, it was brutal. There were no effective drugs, fear was everywhere, and stigma was crushing. But you know who stood with us? Lesbians. They saved us. They showed up in the hospitals, at the marches, in the trenches. That’s what real allyship looks like.
They did. Lesbians took care of us during the AIDS crisis. They stepped into leadership because we couldn’t—we were dying. They became the CEOs, the directors of gay centers, the heads of organizations that kept our community afloat. They didn’t have to—AIDS wasn’t directly killing them—but they stepped up.
True allies are the ones who show up when you’re being beaten down. During AIDS, gay men were being crushed on every level. The President of the United States was joking about us. Federal funding was nonexistent. And it was lesbians who stood by us.
It’s the same thing now. The people who step forward in this moment—the ones who say, “We don’t care if DEI budgets are being slashed, we’re still going to help you”—those are the true allies. This backlash may help us. I know it sounds odd, but it’s clarifying. It’s forcing us to see who was committed and who was rainbow-marketing to us for dollars. The ones who stay now are the ones who were always sincere.
Jacobsen: Alright, Karel, any final thoughts—or maybe a favourite quote?
Bouley: A favourite quote?“This wallpaper is hideous. One of us has to go.” That was allegedly Oscar Wilde’s last line. He sat up in his apartment, looked at the wallpaper, said that—and then he dropped dead. That’s one of my favourites.
But really—look, I’m a talk show host. I can go on forever. I’ve always been passionate. My whole career, I’ve existed at the edge of the gay community, even though I’ve broken the pink ceiling multiple times. For some people, I’m not “gay enough.” For others, I’m “too gay for straight people.”
When Andrew and I were on KFI—the number one talk station in the country—we got picketed by gay organizations. Why? Because we didn’t denounce Dr. Laura. She was on right before us, and people expected us to trash her publicly. Our position was: who cares? She’s on at two, we’re on at three. Don’t like her? Don’t listen. And if you picket her, if you boycott her, her face ends up on the news, not yours. You’re just giving her more press. The best way to deal with Dr. Laura was to ignore her. Please don’t give her oxygen.
But that rubbed some in the gay community the wrong way. Later, when I was on KGO, it was the same thing. After my first anniversary there, the San Francisco Chronicle did a feature on me. They called every gay organization in town—and none of them even knew I was on the number one talk station on the entire West Coast. The only gay person on that platform, and they didn’t even know.
So it just means we’ve always had to fight. And there’s a big fight ahead of us still—for the next three years at least. The good news is: we now know who our real allies are, because they’re the ones who stuck with us. So what will happen to us? Well, we’re here. We’re queer. They may not be used to it, but we’re not going anywhere. We will continue to form new alliances with new people and new companies, and we’ll carry that into 21st-century activism.
So thanks, Scott. Thank you so much for everything. And I look forward to reading the result.
Jacobsen: You’re very welcome. Thank you for your time—it was nice to meet you, 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): 2025/08/24
Mandisa Thomas (she/her/hers) is the founder and President of Black Nonbelievers. Although never formally indoctrinated into belief, Mandisa was heavily exposed to Christianity, Black Nationalism, and Islam.
Mandisa has many media appearances, including CBS Sunday Morning, CNN.com, Playboy, The Humanist, and JET magazines. She has been a guest on podcasts such as NPR’s Code Switch and 1A and the documentaries Contradiction and My Week in Atheism. Mandisa serves on the Board for Humanist Global Charity and previously served on the Board for American Atheists, the American Humanist Association, Foundation Beyond Belief (now GO Humanity), and the Secular Coalition for America.
In 2022, Mandisa was featured on the Atlanta billboard and newspaper ad for the Freedom From Religion Foundation’s “I am Secular and I Vote” campaign. She has also received multiple honours, including the 2022 Wolfson Award. She is a co-recipient of the 2020 Harvard Humanist of the Year.
Thoma shares insights with Scott Douglas Jacobsen into the organization’s ongoing fundraising efforts, mission, and challenges as a secular nonprofit. She discusses the disparities secular organizations face compared to religious institutions, especially in funding and visibility. Thomas emphasizes the importance of inclusive support, joint fundraising, monthly donations, and the impact of large grants. The conversation also addresses church–state separation issues and how current policies threaten public education and secular values. This interview highlights Thomas’s leadership, advocacy, and the vital role of Black Nonbelievers in promoting equity and representation in the secular movement.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here once again with the lovely Mandisa Thomas, a longtime and well-known leader in the secular and atheist activist community, particularly in the United States. It is fundraising season, so what is currently happening with Black Nonbelievers and its fundraising efforts?
Mandisa Thomas: Thank you very much for speaking with me again, Scott. Black Nonbelievers, like many nonprofit organizations, is in the middle of our mid-year summer fundraising campaign. Much of the support we raise goes toward the co-sponsorship of the Zora Neale Hurston Scholarship, which we administer in partnership with the Secular Student Alliance. The funds also help cover ongoing operational expenses, such as streaming services, Meetup group fees, and materials needed for outreach and tabling at events.
This summer has been especially active. We were exhibitors at several key events, including the American Humanist Association’s annual conference, the protest at the Ark Encounter in Kentucky, the Secular Student Alliance’s national conference, and NanoCon (the Nashville Nones Convention). All of these initiatives—travel, booth supplies, merchandise restocking—require significant resources, which makes our summer fundraising drive essential.
We host this campaign each year to replenish our funds and sustain both our direct operations and the broader support we provide to individuals and partner organizations. While many nonprofits follow a standard fundraising cycle, this midyear appeal is significant for our work to continue smoothly through the rest of the year.
Jacobsen: Now, when it comes to funding strategies, my impression of you over the years is that if there is a viable path to raise funds—no matter how unconventional—you will explore it. Would you say that is accurate?
Thomas: Absolutely. I believe in using every available avenue to raise support. For instance, last year we achieved YouTube monetization thanks in part to our debate video featuring Kent Hovind, which drew significant attention. Since then, we have started asking for Super Chats during live streams, and we accept donations through most of our YouTube content.
We also pursue grants—even smaller microgrants—and encourage supporters to give whatever they can, even a few dollars. Earlier this year, we officially launched our membership program. While we are still finalizing elements like physical membership cards and a dedicated member platform, people have already signed up. Members receive perks like discounts on merchandise and events, plus early or exclusive access to news and updates.
And so, we like to incentivize our fundraising. Of course, donations are considered gifts—there is no exchange of goods for them. However, membership is different, which is one reason we ask for donations in addition to membership dues. It is a great way to keep our supporters engaged and invested in the work we do.
Any opportunity to raise funds—whether it is being invited onto different platforms, through interviews like this one, through my writing, or tabling at events, selling merchandise, and collaborating with other organizations—we take it. We tend to leave no stone unturned when it comes to fundraising.
Jacobsen: For secular organizations, is there a general sense that they operate on a shoestring budget? Are they able to do a lot with the relatively small amount of funding they typically receive? Also, is the style of income from fundraising quite different from traditional religious institutions?
Thomas: It is quite different. First, secular organizations tend to be significantly underfunded compared to religious institutions. Most churches and religious groups have institutional support built over centuries. People are more likely to donate to them, whether voluntarily or because they feel socially obligated. That model is familiar to people.
For nonreligious nonprofits, the landscape is different. We are very much cause-driven. There are nonreligious nonprofits that focus on specific missions—especially humanitarian ones—that people are more inclined to support because they feel an immediate connection to the impact.
However, many secular organizations—especially those led by marginalized communities—face additional barriers. The broader nonreligious community still reflects a disproportionate representation of white males, similar to what we often see in leadership within religious spaces. As a result, those organizations frequently receive more financial support.
That does not mean Black Nonbelievers do not receive support—we do—but there is an apparent disparity. Data indicates that minority-led and especially women-led organizations face greater challenges in securing funding in today’s fundraising climate.
Overall, we are still playing catch-up. Even some of the larger secular organizations—like the Freedom From Religion Foundation—operate on budgets that pale in comparison to major religious institutions.
Jacobsen: In terms of demographic equity, what are some ways we can bridge that gap in funding and representation? How do we move toward a more equitable distribution of support so that the vast diversity within nonreligious communities can be reflected in resources?
Thomas: That is a critical question. We need more intentionality in how support is distributed. Funders and supporters should look beyond name recognition and focus on the impact of organizations, especially those working in underserved communities. More collaboration, awareness-raising, and capacity-building for smaller groups can help. Moreover, overall, it is going to take a cultural shift in how the secular movement values diversity, not just in words, but in actual funding and sustained support.
So, of course, the ideal response is to continue encouraging people to donate to the work that we do, especially when we clearly outline our mission, our focus, and our strategies. However, when it comes to addressing disparities, it takes more than just internal effort. We rely on our partner organizations, allied entities, and individuals to help spread the word about Black Nonbelievers and to encourage others to donate and support us.
If there are leads on funding opportunities—particularly those that prioritize women- and minority-led organizations—it helps tremendously when those are passed along to us. I have written grant proposals before, and so have members of our team. I enjoy that work and am willing to put in the effort to secure funds.
However, it can be incredibly exhausting, especially when the workload falls on just one or two people who are also balancing family responsibilities, other professional obligations, and the day-to-day operations of the organization. Grant research and writing take time, and that time is a limited resource.
So, if people can send us leads or help identify relevant grant opportunities, that would be a tremendous support. And of course, we’re always interested in appealing to larger donors. I’ve made more personal appeals to major donors in recent years. I understand that people get busy and forget, and that following up is necessary.
At times, this part of the work can feel frustrating or intimidating, as I dislike the feeling of begging. But I’ve come to understand that asking for donations and support is a key part of my job. So I do make an effort to reach out directly to our supporters, allies, and partner organizations—especially if they have connections to funding sources.
Even if those opportunities are competitive, sharing them goes a long way in my book. A little help can make a big difference.
Jacobsen: What about joint fundraising drives? Are there times of the year or specific events where it makes sense to collaborate with others in the secular fundraising space, where joint outreach is more effective than each organization working alone?
Thomas: Yes, that happens. In 2023, for example, we partnered with the Atlanta chapter of The Satanic Temple for a Halloween event. We combined resources to raise funds for Black Nonbelievers. Some organizations are more partnership-driven than others, and we’ve found that joint efforts like that can be beneficial.
That said, many secular organizations still tend to conduct their fundraising independently. We’ve certainly done both. We’ve hosted livestream fundraisers in collaboration with others, bringing in more well-known voices from both within the secular community and the broader public sphere.
We’ve had guests like Dr. Leo Igwe on two of our livestreams, as well as Dr. Anthony Pinn, historian Dr. Chris Cameron, author and therapist Candace Gorham, and others who are well known in the secular community. They’ve joined us not only to talk about their work but also to highlight the importance of supporting an organization like Black Nonbelievers.
So, joint partnerships and fundraising collaborations have become a bit more common, though every organization is ultimately responsible for raising its funds, which we understand entirely. We do the best we can within our capacity. That said, we are not opposed to partnering with other organizations to fundraise. It’s not off the table at all, and we genuinely appreciate the partners who have supported us in this way.
For example, the Atheist Community of Boston held a weeklong fundraising drive for us in 2021. We’ve also had support from various platforms with strong engagement that have helped raise funds on our behalf. We’re incredibly grateful for those opportunities.
So, going back to your earlier question—if anything is off the table when it comes to fundraising—the answer is no. While joint fundraising ventures may not be as frequent, we’ve certainly participated in them before, and we remain very open to those opportunities in the future.
Jacobsen: What about personal donations that come unexpectedly, like a bequest? Some organizations, such as international nonprofits, often receive legacy gifts when someone includes them in their will. Have Black Nonbelievers experienced anything like that yet?
Thomas: We’ve had inquiries about how to do that, but we haven’t received a bequest yet. However, we are working toward that. We do have language on our website for anyone interested in including us in their estate planning or will. It starts with having our tax ID number available, which is necessary for whoever is handling the estate—whether an attorney or someone with power of attorney—to make the distribution.
That’s the basic requirement to include us in a will or trust. Some organizations also provide a dedicated form to simplify the process for supporters, and we may explore that in the future. In many cases, though, these gifts come unexpectedly, which would be a fantastic development. Many long-standing nonprofits and churches have received significant funding this way, with members choosing to leave part or all of their estate to a cause they care about.
While we haven’t received any legacy gifts yet, we do benefit from other structured giving options. For instance, we accept donations through workplace contribution programs. Some employers offer matching donations for charitable contributions made by their employees, and we regularly receive monthly donations through those platforms.
We also receive contributions through donor-advised funds. Many people with investment accounts designate a certain amount—usually annually, semiannually, or on a set schedule—for the nonprofit of their choice. Organizations like Fidelity Charitable, Schwab Charitable, and Vanguard Charitable allow donors to give directly from their investment or retirement accounts, and we’ve received support through those channels as well.
So, while we are still actively pursuing and hoping for future bequests, we’re very appreciative of the many ways people choose to support us, whether through our website, workplace giving, or donor-advised funds.
Jacobsen: So those are just other ways that organizations can receive the support they need. If you were to break down how much each funding stream brings in—just so other organizations looking to chart a similar path can get an idea—how does that divide? How much comes from memberships, merchandise, grants, and other sources, proportion-wise?
Thomas: Yes. So for Black Nonbelievers—and I can only speak for us, since every organization is different—here’s how it generally breaks down.
Larger organizations often receive significant portions of their funding through extensive checks or major donor gifts. And while we do accept checks and have reached out to major donors—those capable of giving five- or six-figure contributions—for us, the majority of our support comes through monthly giving, especially via PayPal.
We also get a good amount of support through in-person tabling at conferences and conventions. We receive a bit through platforms like ActBlue—some donors give monthly or on an annual basis through there.
So, it varies, but most of our consistent revenue right now comes from monthly PayPal donations, which people can set up directly through our website.
Our official membership platform is still growing. We hope that, in the future, it becomes a significant source of revenue. But currently, it’s those monthly contributions and periodic fundraising campaigns—like our midyear summer drive, mybirthday campaign, and our end-of-year appeal—that bring in the bulk of our support.
Jacobsen: Are there particular projects or areas of expansion for a secular nonprofit where small donations just won’t cut it, where you do need grant-level or major-donor funding to move forward? And on the flip side, where do regular, periodic monthly donations come into play, just in terms of keeping the lights on? Is that an important distinction to make?
Thomas: Absolutely—it is a crucial distinction.
For example, I would love for my position as president to be a salaried one. That would require grant-level funding or a significant major-donor contribution. Being able to hire someone full-time—or even part-time officially—would also require those larger funds.
Right now, we rely on contractors or short-term help, which is primarily made possible by our monthly donors. That support allows us to pay for assistance as needed and handle regular operational costs.
But for long-term sustainability—things like staffing, infrastructure, and more advanced programming—we would need a significant grant or a major donation. Something in the range of $50,000 to $100,000 would be transformative. That kind of funding would allow us to streamline our communications, expand outreach, and provide more consistent engagement with members and donors. It would also help us develop and distribute more resources to our community.
And if we were ever looking to secure office space or a permanent physical location for operations, that would require a larger grant or capital campaign.
Some grants are tied to special projects, like research, focus groups, or community studies. Several initiatives could benefit from larger grants to fund their efforts.
That said, smaller contributions can still have a significant impact. For example, if we had a network of 5,000 people each giving $10 a month, that would total about $50,000 per month, or roughly $600,000 per year. That’s a significant amount, and yet, when compared to what many larger nonprofits or religious organizations bring in, it still pales in comparison.
So while that level of support might feel big, in the larger nonprofit world, it’s not massive, but it would go a long way for us. If Black Nonbelievers were to receive a $500,000 grant or endowment in 2025, that could sustain us for multiple years. It would allow us to fund salaried positions, upgrade equipment, improve our streaming platforms, and expand our infrastructure.
That kind of multiyear, multipurpose funding is what we’re working toward through grants, endowments, and sustained donor support.
Jacobsen: What specific fundraising projects are underway right now? Can you give some details?
Thomas: Yes. As always, one of our key initiatives is co-sponsoring the Zora Neale Hurston Scholarship with the Secular Student Alliance. That scholarship typically ranges from $1,500 to $2,000, and we help fund it annually.
Beyond that, our general operations require ongoing support. This includes maintaining our website, covering costs for our event platforms, purchasing supplies and merchandise, and supporting our presence at conferences and tabling events. All of that falls under what we call our general operating fund.
Some people might see that as “overhead,” but general operating costs are essential for keeping the organization running, especially if we want to continue offering both in-person and virtual events. Those platforms cost money, and we depend on fundraising to keep them going.
Jacobsen: What else should we discuss before we wrap up today?
Thomas: One crucial issue is the growing concern around religious encroachment in public spaces, particularly in the workplace, especially on the federal level. The previous administration encouraged more open religious expression in those settings, which has broader implications.
Jacobsen: There’s been a noticeable erosion of church–state separation in the U.S. What does that look like on the funding level, specifically regarding the advantages religious institutions have gained under recent administrations?
Thomas: That’s an excellent question. We’ve seen increasing efforts to direct public funds toward religious entities—including churches, private religious schools, and homeschooling initiatives rooted in religious ideologies.
There’s a push to privatize education by redirecting public taxpayer money to religious institutions under the banner of “school choice” or “parental rights.” It’s framed in seemingly innocuous terms, but the implications are profound. It undermines secular public education and tilts the balance in favour of religious institutions that already benefit from significant tax exemptions and built-in financial advantages.
This trend not only challenges the constitutional principle of church–state separation but also creates further disparities for secular and nonreligious nonprofits trying to operate in the same space without the same privileges or access to public funding.
What we’re seeing now is a strong push to divert public funds to private religious education, which erodes the separation of church and state. If churches want to fund religious schools, they should do so through tuition, donations from parishioners, or private endowments—not through public taxpayer dollars.
To use public funds to promote specific religious beliefs—particularly Christianity—is a clear constitutional violation. It’salso deeply troubling. This current administration is accelerating the erosion of church–state separation and undermining constitutional protections like freedom of religion and freedom from religion.
What we’re witnessing is essentially an end run around long-standing legal boundaries, which not only weakens public education but sets a dangerous precedent. There’s already a sustained attack on public education at the federal level, and that trickles down to state, city, and local governments. Meanwhile, specific interest groups are pushing their religious agendas directly into public policy, infringing on fundamental human rights.
We’ve always dealt with religious majorities trying to inject their beliefs into public life through language, holidays, or community traditions. Many nonbelievers tolerate this, even when it’s frustrating, because we understand we’re in the minority. But now, when there’s any kind of pushback, we’re seeing an aggressive counter-response. They’re pushing back harder, and in real time, we are witnessing what the erosion of church–state separation looks like.
Sometimes, it feels overwhelming—even hopeless. But we can’t give up. We have to continue pushing forward, reminding the public that inserting religious beliefs into public policy is unconstitutional. It also violates workplace guidelines and the rights of all employees, not just religious ones.
Just because something has been done a certain way for a long time doesn’t make it right. The soft, coded language used to justify these actions is manipulative. It’s subtle—but strategic. And if we don’t stay vigilant, those promoting this agenda will succeed. We cannot let that happen.
Jacobsen: Lisa, thank you very much for your time today. I appreciate it, as always.
Thomas: There are never any surprises with you—always thoughtful answers. Thank you so much, Scott.
Jacobsen: 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): 2025/08/23
Ian Packard, co-founder and COO of OS Studios, has been instrumental in reshaping the gaming, esports, and entertainment industries. Alongside John Higgins, Packard built OS from a two-person operation into a global creative force, working with major clients like Riot Games, Netflix, and the NBA. Through innovative scaling strategies, passion-driven hiring, and a relentless focus on community engagement, OS Studios has delivered groundbreaking productions like Call of Duty: Next. Packard emphasizes the transformative impact of AI and live streaming on the future of gaming, predicting dynamic and evolving player experiences. OS Studios’ success reflects the integration of gaming into mainstream culture and live entertainment.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with Ian Packard. He is the co-founder and COO of OS Studios, a creative agency specializing in gaming, esports, sports, and entertainment — all rapidly growing industries. As a side note, for those who may not know, the global gaming industry is now larger than the Hollywood film industry!
After meeting co-founder John Higgins at the National Film and Television School in the United Kingdom, the duo launched Mayhem Studios in London and later founded OS Studios in New York in 2018.
Under Ian’s operational leadership, OS grew from just two team members to more than 40, with offices in New York, London, and APAC, and was acquired by Project Worldwide in 2021. Ian has led significant projects for clients such as Riot Games, Netflix, and Major League Baseball, bringing deep production expertise, strategic innovation, and thought leadership to the evolving intersection of gaming, sports, and digital media.
Thank you very much for tuning in. I appreciate it. So, what inspired you and John Higgins to launch OS Studios? I interviewed John about it before. Now, we will hear your version.
Ian Packard: I think it is fun to share this because John and I — the success of our partnership, really — well, you have met John. John is a big presence and comes from a theatre background. My mannerisms are almost the opposite of that. I think contrast has been the secret to our success in many ways.
We had worked together before at Mayhem (our previous UK-based agency) and met during film school. Finding someone to go into business with is the hardest part. I have known plenty of friends for ten years who you think would make great business partners, but you are just great friends, not great co-founders. Sometimes, the best possible outcome is exiting a business and salvaging a friendship.
What John and I found was a sporadic connection. I hate using “synergy” — let us not say “synergy” — but we developed a professional relationship that could last. Six years in, we still have an incredibly strong business partnership. We still talk for hours. We chatted while on our treadmills before work this morning. Some of it is work-related, but a lot is just maintaining the connection.
Without going too far off track, the real reason for launching OS was that, after years of working with different people, we realized we had found the right match with each other.
Also, John and I are builders — we like to create new things rather than fit them into existing systems. As John probably mentioned, it was also a matter of timing. Gaming and esports were at an inflection point then.
Our first major client was the NBA. They approached us and said we wanted to launch a Twitch channel. What does that involve? What do you need from us? That set things in motion.
Jacobsen: When you both realized that this was the direction you wanted to go in, what did that look like?
Packard: I remember that exact moment in our office. I leaned over to John and said, “We should do this.”
Starting with a client like the NBA puts you in quite an advantageous position because you immediately have a strong showreel. From there, things just spiralled. Aside from gaming evolving from a niche genre into a broader cultural force, I think the biggest thing was that live streaming — the backbone of how broader audiences were consuming gaming content — became accessible with relatively affordable, off-the-shelf equipment.
Previously, to create a live, multi-camera broadcast, you had to spend $50,000, $60,000, $70,000 — even millions — on equipment typically reserved for traditional broadcasters like ESPN. Six years ago, you could suddenly walk into a store, spend about $10,000, and today, that cost is probably closer to $2,000, and get the tools to produce a live multi-camera show. That shift and the excitement around gaming’s rise made it clear: “Okay, let’s do this.”
That was the gestational point for us.
Jacobsen: Now, scaling is a significant challenge for any business. You went from two employees to over 40 — a 20-fold increase. What were the challenges in scaling in this industry? Or, given gaming’s explosive growth, was it relatively easy?
Packard: There were a few things that helped. One thing I’ve loved about launching OS in the US five or six years ago is that if there’s a problem to be solved, someone has already thought of a software or service to make it easier.
Even little things like “How do you do payroll?” became real questions when we started. Traditionally, you would go out, hire an accountancy firm, and pay an exorbitant fee. Health insurance was another massive cost.
Scaling for us was about not necessarily doing things the way they had always been done. We looked for smarter, more cost-effective solutions: payroll companies designed for small businesses and health insurance providers that catered to startups. Rather than hiring headhunters at a 25% salary commission, John and I became very hands-on and astute in our hiring practices.
When I think about OS, I don’t know whether someone went to college. I am not interested in what degree someone has or whether they finished high school. Whether they are passionate about what we build and engage with the medium matters.
That approach allowed us to scale without using traditional hiring strategies. We found people who genuinely love the games we work with and the publishers we partner with. They are, in fact, the same audience we are trying to reach. We could recruit directly from communities — from Discord servers, not LinkedIn pages.
So, yeah, there was a lot of “building the plane as we flew it,” as every startup does — and I know it’s a bit of a cliché. But for us, it was really about using innovative tools in the market.
Jacobsen: How did Mayhem shape the collaborative and creative approach to building OS Studios?
Packard: Well, we joke, but honestly, every startup is a little bit of organized chaos, right?
Mayhem comes from John’s original company, Managing Mayhem, which is a perfect metaphor for agency and startup life. For us, Mayhem was a real foundation. We came out of film school together. John already had a strong theatre background, putting on big shows, and I had been doing a lot of work in sports, which was initially my dream.
Mayhem taught us just how crowded the UK market was for the kind of work we were doing. Mayhem was a branded content production company — traditional TV commercials, promo videos, and the like.
The real lesson, which still shapes OS today, was to find your niche.
If I take it even further back, I remember when I was 19 or 20, I was working at IMG — a big sports production company. I had a conversation with the head of production there, and he said something that stuck with me: “Find your niche.”
He told me that there are a trillion production companies in the world, a trillion people who can buy cameras, and if you want to go into sports, you are competing against people who have been there for decades.
That advice stayed with me. At the time, gaming and esports were still perceived as niche. Now, of course, we know gaming is bigger than Hollywood.
But back then, traditional media did not take gaming seriously. That perception — that gaming was “small” or “unimportant” — helped us thrive because we saw where things were going before legacy media caught up.
We recently added a nice feather to our cap by talking to a big sports client a few weeks ago about becoming their new broadcast partner. Their big point was, “Look, 50 or 60 companies can do this the very traditional way. But I want something different. You guys are different, and that’s why I’m here. I want you to devise a new way of doing this because we need new eyeballs, younger viewers, and audience engagement.”
Right now, I think sports are — hopefully — starting to experience a renaissance in adjusting to how audiences consume content. Formula 1 has done quite a good job with that to a degree, but there is still so much more that traditional sports can learn from gaming.
It is essential to break down the walls of legacy media — the mentality of “We only do it this way” — why shouldn’t sports be broadcast on TikTok? Why should sports not have truly interactive audience engagement?
Twitch, for example, has built incredible models with extensions, bits, and digital currencies — and by that, I don’t mean crypto or NFTs. I mean mechanisms that allow audiences to engage without spending $200 monthly on a cable subscription.
I love sports, and I watch a lot of them. But I haven’t had a cable subscription since I moved to the States — it simply doesn’t make sense anymore.
If sports leagues want to maintain their relevance, especially amid concerns about an aging fan base, they must reinvent themselves now. For example, Major League Baseball and NASCAR have fan bases that tend to be older. They need to be thinking about how to reach the next generation.
So, yes, I’ve gone off on a bit of a tangent, but that mantra of “Let’s do things differently” is real for us, not just a startup cliché.
When we apply that approach across gaming culture, sports, music, and entertainment, we view it all under the same umbrella: live entertainment.
The question becomes: What can traditional entertainment industries learn from the strengths gaming, especially esports, has developed over the years of reinventing live media consumption?
Jacobsen: Now, what about some insights you can give us behind the scenes — for instance, about Call of Duty: Next or Arcane’s global activations?
Packard: I would say it was not just a launch. It was a moment.
Two things made Call of Duty: Next so exciting. First, it was an affirmation for me — that what we are doing has a much broader impact than just. This is our business. We enjoy media production, and we love gaming. Saying it that way sounds very low-key, but Call of Duty: Next was the first time we did an event where I had friends from university, friends from home in the UK, friends from school texting me like, “Oh, wow, you guys did that? That’s epic. I had no idea you were behind that!”
Sometimes, when you’re making something or producing something, you get so lost in the sauce. There are 300 staff on-site. It’s a vast operation. When you’re there creating it, you forget how broad the impact can be.
For context for anyone listening, Call of Duty: Next is the annual launch event Activision holds each year to reveal the new Call of Duty title. The first one was in 2022. Last year’s 2024 edition marked the third iteration, and OS Studios has produced each one since its inception.
The big USP (unique selling proposition) of Call of Duty: Next is that it is not a traditional product launch. Instead of one person standing on stage like at an Apple keynote or an old-school E3 presentation, you have 200+ streamers — prominent streamers, influencers from gaming culture, and celebrities — all given immediate access to the beta and broadcasting live to their audiences simultaneously.
It’s a deconstructed launch. And what’s fantastic about that, beyond the incredible audience metrics and organic engagement, is the technical side.
Technically, we could have gotten a Guinness World Record for what we achieved. Having 200+ people go live from one room simultaneously, each to multiple social media platforms like Twitch and YouTube, plus running a main Activision broadcast that pulls from and integrates most of those feeds — there was no blueprint for how to do it.
We didn’t invent anything proprietary per se, but we worked closely with partners to develop new technical solutions. We devised a new operational method.
Jacobsen: It is like a weird, scheduled meta-organic traffic model. You have your base 200 going live at a scheduled time, and then that branches out — not just full streams but clips, reactions, everything — all radiating out within that structured launch window.
Packard: It’s incredibly powerful.
Jacobsen: Also, do you get valuable feedback from the comment sections of those streams? Because if you are running a beta, you know bugs and issues will pop up. Early feedback could be hugely valuable to the development cycle.
Packard: Yes. However, to be clear, there is a big game development team at Activision — OS Studios that has nothing to do with actually designing the game itself. But to have, to your point, that much tangible feedback in real-time, even while we’re juggling a massive logistics operation, is invaluable.
What’s nice is that the community we have there — the streamers and creators — are very tolerant of that. They’re just so excited to be there. They genuinely want the game to succeed, and the opportunity to meet the developers directly and provide feedback builds a healthy ecosystem.
That’s a big thing we at OS encourage our clients to do: Do not build for the community. Build with the community.
How do you create an event focusing on the community from the ground up, creating a platform for them to generate content without unnecessary micromanagement? Instead of barking orders, you give them a space and trust that they will figure it out.
Again, it ties back to OS Studios’ broader positioning: helping to evolve the mindsets of legacy media and agencies.
You know, the big traditional agencies that dominate Cannes Lions each year, winning 30 or 40 Lions annually. We entered our first Cannes Lion competition this year, which was a labour of love to pull together. But a lot of the time, these big agencies white-labeled us.
They want to work with a smaller agency like OS because we’re genuinely connected to the culture — half of our staff isthe target audience. This connects to one of your earlier points: employers must be mindful of their industry and shape their hiring practices within that framework.
Jacobsen: In some sectors with standardized professional expectations — like accounting, taxes, or research — degrees and credentials are critical. You need that foundational knowledge to develop correctly in those fields, whether in practical domains like tax accounting or more theoretical ones like pure mathematics.
But in industries like video games, esports, and sports, where people are often borderline addicted to the subject matter out of pure passion, you want people who live and breathe it. Professionals in these spaces usually work eight to ten hours daily.
That is why your commentary is so relevant: In creative industries like gaming and entertainment, you need people who understand and feel the work. They know what it is like to play a game for one hour versus ten hours, and they even notice the differences depending on what time of day they play.
Packard: And to clarify, our accountancy team is more than qualified! But they don’t play Excel for eight to ten hours a day for fun.
Jacobsen: [Laughing] That is right. This is the thing — we still have big plans involving major brand names. Another Halo game, probably the next StarCraft, probably another Diablo, and another Call of Duty are coming around the corner at some point. League of Legends continues to get updates and revamps.
However, the gaming style is also changing, especially with VR and emerging technologies. How will gaming change over the next five years, especially with deeper AI integration? For instance, a level boss in the future might not just be a scripted program — it could learn and adapt dynamically to how the team fights it. And second, how do you see the value of entertainment changing?
Packard: Oh, that’s a hard but good one.
To your point, I have been fascinated by the AI side for a while. AI is an incredible tool, but it can also be badly misused.
My skepticism shows whenever I read so many poorly written LinkedIn posts these days — the overuse of em-dashes, for example — and honestly, I would challenge 90% of people even to know where an em-dash is on the keyboard! [Laughs]
But seriously, we use AI a lot at OS. It is a fascinating tool. We have experimented with it across design, refining copy, and other creative processes. From a marketing agency perspective, we are just scratching the surface.
AI’s integration into gaming is going to be massive.
Game replayability is currently primarily served by regular updates, patches, and downloadable content (DLC).
Take Grand Theft Auto V, for example. It’s been over a decade since it launched, yet it has stayed alive and become a global phenomenon due to its DLCs, updates, and the strength of its dedicated online community.
Looking to the future, I see two major shifts:
First, I think the new Grand Theft Auto will bring an actual, functioning metaverse-style game to life. It won’t just be a place to play — it will be a fully realized, virtual version of yourself. Inside the game, there will be an internal economy and currencies with real value.
Many games have already touched on this. Look at NBA 2K — every year when the new title drops, people grind for fourteen or fifteen hours daily to level up their characters and gain advantages. Gaming is moving toward a much deeper fusion of identity, economy, and experience — AI will supercharge that.
But as we look at what Grand Theft Auto could become, it’s that proper kind of second-person experience — a metaverse-style experience — built for a ten-year life cycle, because GTA releases tend to last a decade.
And then, to your point, how does AI get leveraged to create a truly personalized gaming experience? Replayability is key. I grew up playing role-playing games like Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic.
Ironically, I grew up in a part of the UK where we didn’t have broadband until I was about 16. So, my gaming history was largely built offline, with long, single-player RPGs that could take 60-70 hours to complete. But imagine if I could replay a game like that — and through AI, it would evolve based on my play style.
It could learn what I enjoy most in role-playing, the choices I tend to make, and adapt the story, missions, and even final boss fights dynamically, rather than relying on traditional scripted mechanics or “fake AI” that we have seen until now.
So yes, I think AI, combined with the actual manifestation of open-world environments, will drive the future of gaming.
Borrowing lessons from games like Roblox, Minecraft, and others that hint at this model, Grand Theft Auto V could be a significant technical leap forward. Nobody knows what it will look like, but given Rockstar’s track record, it will be extraordinary.
Jacobsen: That is a great answer. What is your favourite quote about gaming culture? It does not have to be from a founder — just any quote about gaming culture that resonates with you.
Packard: Oh, that’s a hard one. [Laughing]
Honestly, I don’t have a specific quote off the top of my head. I won’t Google it, either. I want to keep it authentic. But if I were to create a quote, it would go something like this:
“Gaming culture today is like what music was in the 1990s — it’s everywhere, embedded in everything.”
To say that gaming is still a standalone genre or a niche entity is just inaccurate. Gaming is now part of every aspect of culture.
We hear so much talk about “gamification.” Many of our clients, whether in sports, entertainment, or music festivals, ask, “How do we apply gamification to what we are doing?“
So, paraphrasing that into a quote:
Gaming is no longer a niche but is woven into the cultural fabric.
There’s still an old stereotype that gaming is just about teenagers sitting in basements, but that’s completely outdated. Gaming today is collaborative, social, creative, and community-driven.
There’s also an older quote from Andy Serkis that says, “Every Age has its storytelling form, and video gaming is a massive part of our culture. You can ignore or embrace video games and imbue them with the best artistic quality. People are just as enthralled with video games as others are with the cinema or theatre. Over time, I think perceptions will change.”
I love this quote, as I think the article or interview is from 15 years ago now. It was a time when gaming wasn’t taken seriously, and he saw it as a legitimate form of storytelling. Looking at where we are now, with games shaping culture globally, it feels like Andy Serkis was ahead of his time.
Jacobsen: Authenticity is critical across every field, not just gaming.
Packard: Absolutely. Being inauthentic is never a recipe for success, no matter your industry.
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): 2025/08/23
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.
This interview explores the evolving role of maritime power in global security and deterrence, expert commentary highlights the technical, operational, and strategic aspects of undersea drones, nuclear submarine endurance, supply chain resilience, and quantum navigation technologies, the discussion underscores how Western powers have prioritized air dominance while underestimating the enduring importance of maritime superiority, drawing on examples from the Black Sea, Suez Canal, Strait of Hormuz, and Red Sea piracy, it illustrates how naval readiness—or its absence—directly affects global trade, stability, and strategic deterrence against adversaries like China, Russia, Iran, and non-state actors.
Interview conducted on August 16, 2025.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: As discussed, there is the matter of pedagogy and the ongoing review of the AUKUS agreement. A common question is whether such processes typically conclude on schedule, by military planning, or whether they generally take longer than anticipated.
Irina Tsukerman: At present, the review is scheduled to conclude in the fall. However, given the current state of the Pentagon, predicting the outcome is difficult. The Pentagon has been aggressively reducing staff, including personnel who would ordinarily participate in such reviews. Additionally, trade and diplomatic tensions with allied nations may further complicate the process, though in principle these matters should remain separate. The review itself is routine, with the primary goal being to identify and optimize any elements necessary for the strategic, operational, and technical assessment.
The program is ambitious and has been described by some as one of the most significant trilateral defence initiatives in recent history. Nevertheless, despite its broad scope, it has not attracted the same level of public or strategic attention as the Quad or other multilateral arrangements that have emerged over the past decade. The central focus of this process is Australia’s acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines. These vessels are intended to be powered by enriched nuclear reactors derived from United States and United Kingdom designs. Although there was controversy regarding France’s loss of a previous submarine contract with Australia, that issue is unlikely to affect the scope of the current agreement.
This program, often framed as a major defence alliance initiative, is designed to counter China’s growing threat in the Indo-Pacific region. The centrepiece of this strategy is the development of the SSN-AUKUS class submarines, which are expected to form the backbone of Australia’s future naval fleet. These submarines are based on the United Kingdom’s next-generation SSN design, with all three AUKUS nations involved in development, though the United States and the United Kingdom play the larger roles. They will be powered by pressurized-water reactors designed to increase endurance and enhance operational capability.
One of the most significant innovations in this class of submarines lies in stealth technology. Compared to earlier models, the SSN-AUKUS class aims to significantly reduce acoustic signals through advanced noise-reduction technologies, thereby improving their ability to operate undetected. In essence, the program represents an attempt not only to extend the endurance of submarine fleets but also to advance their stealth and overall effectiveness against rising Chinese naval capabilities.
One of the technologies mentioned is the use of anechoic tiles, which reduce reverberation by absorbing sonar signals. Alongside this, the submarines employ raft-mounted machinery to dampen vibrations, further improving stealth. These innovations make the vessels more enduring and survivable in contested maritime environments. In other words, if the Western alliance—the AUKUS partnership—were to enter into conflict with China, these submarines would be less vulnerable to detection and destruction.
A key feature of the design is the integration of the evolved version of the U.S. Navy BYG-1 combat control system. This includes more advanced sonar processing, improved weapons control, and tactical decision-making aids intended to enhance interoperability between Australian, British, and American naval forces—not only in training and regular operations but also in the event of conflict. The submarines will be equipped with bow-mounted active and passive sonar arrays as well as flank arrays, providing superior situational awareness. These systems allow crews to distinguish between different types of threats in complex environments and improve early detection.
The design also incorporates a standard vertical launch system (VLS), enabling deployment of a variety of weapons, including land-attack cruise missiles and anti-ship missiles. This versatility enhances both deterrence and operational flexibility. In practice, such submarines can perform missions ranging from strategic deterrence—maintaining a threatening presence at sea—to direct power projection, striking enemy vessels or even land targets. This aligns with the broader global trend of modern navies seeking to maintain superiority through advanced undersea warfare capabilities.
Importantly, the SSN-AUKUS submarines are being optimized for joint operations. This means they are not intended for unilateral use, but rather for integrated allied missions. Planned cooperation includes joint training programs, synchronized maintenance schedules, and coordinated deployment strategies. Operationally, these submarines will likely monitor maritime boundaries near contested international waters—particularly in regions where China has demonstrated expansionist behaviour, such as the South China Sea, Taiwan, the Philippines, and even waters close to Australia and Vietnam. The overarching aim is to provide credible deterrence against Chinese naval expansion while reinforcing collective security in the Indo-Pacific.
Anywhere China has either an ongoing maritime dispute or seeks to project power, it has expanded its presence—even sending surveillance ships as far as Alaska, which, while unusual, has occurred. In such cases, advanced submarines under the AUKUS framework would mean that not only the U.S. Coast Guard would be responsible for countering these incursions, but allies could potentially deploy as well.
While I do not expect such deployments to the far Pacific in the immediate future, escalation could make them necessary. Integrating the combat systems of the AUKUS nations allows multinational forces to operate more effectively, enhancing collective security and joint operational capacity. Strategically, this strengthens deterrence and contributes to allied cohesion.
Regarding basing, Australia’s Osborne Naval Shipyard in South Australia has been designated as the primary facility for the maintenance of the new nuclear-powered submarines. The site is currently being upgraded to meet stringent requirements associated with nuclear propulsion. In addition, Australia has committed to significant investments in domestic shipbuilding capacity, though this has been the subject of considerable controversy.
The United States faces significant challenges in this regard. American naval shipyards are chronically overburdened and under-resourced, with maintenance backlogs, staff shortages, and inadequate modernization. Reports have highlighted rusting infrastructure and insufficient personnel, leading to delays across multiple projects. Although shipbuilding is officially declared a priority, Congress has struggled to allocate resources effectively or pass comprehensive reforms to address the bottlenecks. Civilian commercial shipbuilding initiatives have received some legislative support, but comparable progress has not been made in the military sphere.
Strategically, Australia’s investment in U.S. shipbuilding capabilities is viewed as mutually beneficial. It could both expedite progress on the AUKUS submarine program and provide more general support to U.S. naval construction, which remains essential given China’s rapid naval buildup. However, Pentagon cost-cutting measures—particularly staff reductions—have not reduced project costs, which remain tied to earlier projections. This mismatch between resources, workforce, and financial planning contributes to delays and inefficiencies. Congressional debates continue over whether current projects remain adequate and relevant in light of China’s accelerating defence investments.
When so many of the people who were supposed to oversee these projects are dismissed, it inevitably changes the budget, the timelines, and the framework for review—including who is responsible for safety oversight. This is part of the reason the process has become far messier than it should have been.
Submarines are not the only focus of the AUKUS agenda. They are the centrepiece, but the partnership is also advancing other projects, including hypersonic weapons. These systems are controversial—not because they are ineffective, but because they are enormously costly relative to their limited operational scope. There is an ongoing debate about whether to prioritize more hypersonic missiles, which can only be produced in limited numbers, or to invest in a broader range of conventional weapons that cover multiple threats.
The trilateral framework is also funding joint development of cruise and anti-ship missiles (outside of those deployed on submarines), uncrewed undersea vehicles (UUVs)—essentially underwater drones—and quantum technologies. The latter are particularly significant given China’s accelerated research and collaboration with other BRICS countries, especially India, in both general-purpose quantum computing and defence-oriented applications.
Another critical capability under review is the Tomahawk land-attack cruise missile (TLAM), a long-range, all-weather, subsonic cruise missile capable of precision strikes against land targets. These have been used extensively in recent conflicts, including operations in Yemen, where U.S. stocks were rapidly depleted due to years of stalled production. This shortfall highlights the vulnerability of relying on limited inventories of highly advanced munitions.
The Tomahawk is already designed for deployment from Virginia-class submarines. It may be integrated into the future SSN-AUKUS submarines, though the exact scale of deployment has yet to be finalized. To expand strike capacity, the U.S. Navy has developed the Virginia Payload Module (VPM), which adds four additional vertical launch tubes to Virginia-class submarines. This allows for significantly greater missile capacity, enhancing strike options and deterrent capability if integrated into the AUKUS program.
That would make the submarines more suited for offensive purposes, not simply for deterrence patrols or “looking scary.”
Beyond the submarines, Australia is also integrating the Naval Strike Missile (NSM)—a modern anti-ship missile jointly developed by Kongsberg (Norway) and Raytheon (U.S.). It has a low radar cross-section, making it stealthier and more challenging to detect, and it is designed to strike moving maritime targets with high precision. The Royal Australian Navy is integrating NSM into multiple surface platforms, including the ANZAC-class frigates and the upcoming Hunter-class frigates, enhancing overall warfighting capability in preparation for potential conflict scenarios, particularly with China.
In addition, Australia is procuring Standard Missile-2 (SM-2) and Standard Missile-6 (SM-6) systems from Raytheon. These surface-to-air missiles are critical for fleet air and missile defence. The SM-6, in particular, offers extended range and multi-role versatility, engaging not only aircraft but also cruise missiles, ballistic missiles in their terminal phase, and even surface targets. Recent conflicts—including missile and drone attacks in the Middle East—have underscored the vital importance of layered air defence. Without it, naval forces are highly vulnerable.
Regarding hypersonic weapons, the AUKUS framework envisions cooperative work on hypersonic glide vehicles (HGVs), which travel at speeds exceeding Mach 5 and possess maneuverability that makes them extraordinarily difficult to detect and intercept. Their cost, however, is prohibitive, which necessitates close collaboration among the three nations to share research, development, and production burdens. This collaboration is intended to maintain a technological edge, especially as China continues to invest heavily in hypersonic systems as part of its naval and strategic modernization.
Another initiative relevant here is the Future Cruise/Anti-Ship Weapon (FC/ASW) program, a joint project between the United Kingdom and France, with Italy joining as a partner. This program aims to develop a new generation of cruise and anti-ship missiles, including both subsonic stealth variants and supersonic high-speed variants. It is noteworthy because France, which typically emphasizes strategic independence, rarely engages in such collaborative missile projects. While the program remains in development and has not yet been integrated into AUKUS planning, its eventual products could enhance allied strike capabilities. However, high costs, immaturity of the designs, and interoperability challenges with existing platforms mean that adoption is still uncertain.
That suggests even more work and expense on top of what is already a massive undertaking. And then there are the drones—the uncrewed undersea vehicles. I sometimes want to call them “unscrewed,” because that is how it feels every time. Let me call them sub-drones.
Sub-drones are still under review and have not been fully approved by the AUKUS partners. The challenge is not only in deploying them but also in recovering them. If one were to be lost or sink to the seabed, retrieval before an adversary could capture it would be essential, but difficult. Operationally, these vehicles could perform multiple roles: intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, and even strike missions. Their versatility would expand the effectiveness of submarine operations by providing additional capabilities and flexibility.
Alongside this, quantum technologies are a top priority in the AUKUS framework. Unlike some of the other programs that depend on political approval or shifting budgets, quantum research is recognized as strategically critical. These technologies are being developed for positioning, navigation, and timing (PNT) systems, which would provide highly secure navigation—particularly effective in GPS-denied environments. The idea is that, unlike current systems vulnerable to interference, quantum-based PNT would be far more resistant to hacking or spoofing. While some argue no system will be truly unhackable, quantum methods will certainly complicate adversarial penetration attempts and provide an edge in contested environments.
To illustrate, in scenarios where GPS is unavailable—or where using it would reveal one’s position—quantum navigation systems could allow submarines and other assets to operate stealthily while maintaining precision and coordination. Whoever achieves reliable, deployable quantum navigation first will have a considerable strategic advantage, much like the current AI race.
All of these developments point toward a vision of long-duration submarine operations. Nuclear-powered submarines with pressurized water reactors do not require frequent refuelling or surfacing, enabling extended submerged missions. This endurance means they can remain stealthy in highly contested maritime arenas such as the South China Sea or the Taiwan Strait, where detection avoidance is crucial. Their propulsion systems and advanced quieting technologies will make them harder to track, giving allied forces a significant tactical advantage.
The review process, therefore, is examining not only the construction and propulsion of the submarines but also the integration of these advanced technologies—drones, quantum systems, stealth measures, and extended operational frameworks. It is a comprehensive assessment of how to build and sustain the most advanced allied submarine capability in history.
Each vessel is supposed to have noise-reduction technology. Moreover, as you noted earlier, every one of these aspects is subject to joint review. Operational considerations, then, remain a core focus of this process.
While the new technologies often draw the spotlight, the maintenance cycle is just as critical. It is less glamorous than new weapons systems, but it is essential. Reactor refuelling schedules, for example, must be carefully managed—you cannot afford to run out of propulsion capacity during extended operations. The same applies to the servicing of weapons systems. Without sufficiently trained personnel to maintain and repair these systems, they may as well not exist. Having highly trained crews who can quickly return assets to service is vital, both for cost efficiency and for operational readiness.
The review is also assessing whether Australian crews have the necessary capacity and training to operate advanced platforms alongside U.S. and U.K. forces. This involves joint patrols, sensor sharing, coordinated responses, and even missions such as rescues or escort operations. Often, naval standoffs involve “escort scenarios,” where vessels shadow or escort one another out of contested waters rather than engaging in battle. Interoperability in these situations is as important as it would be in direct conflict.
Supply chains are another crucial element under review—ranging from reactor fuel to sonar modules, torpedoes, and spare parts. Spare parts, in particular, are a strategic vulnerability often overlooked. If exports are restricted or suppliers are cut off, vessels can quickly become inoperable. As such, mitigating supply-chain bottlenecks is considered as strategically significant as building the submarines themselves.
Taken together, these considerations support the broader aim of deterrence. A combination of advanced weapons, strong maintenance capacity, reliable supply chains, and trained personnel signals to allies and adversaries alike that the alliance is credible. Allies are encouraged to deepen cooperation, while adversaries are deterred from aggression. This enhances not only the credibility of U.S. forward presence but also strengthens allied cohesion by countering the perception that partners are dependent or “free-riding” on American power.
That is why the review is so meticulous. It spans everything from reactor physics to sensor fusion, from crew training to weapons deployment. Although it sounds complex, the framework is straightforward, since much of the political approval for these projects has already taken place. The task now is ensuring that the technical, operational, and logistical components align to deliver a sustainable, integrated force.
Every system, every operational cycle, and every technical infrastructure component is examined for how well it contributes to the broader ecosystem and strategic objectives. Once high-end capabilities are integrated, the question becomes: how does the entire posture compare to what adversaries are doing, and how flexible is it in delivering maritime dominance? That is what determines whether a state becomes a maritime superpower—or at least a credible naval power.
This is why so much attention is devoted to AUKUS and maritime power more broadly. Dominance at sea parallels the way air power came to dominate military planning in the twentieth century. Air superiority has received overwhelming attention for decades—and understandably so. It looks dramatic on television, it is easier for advanced powers to produce modern fighter aircraft, and it has become a hotly competitive global industry. Air power also allows the projection of force without placing large numbers of ground troops at risk. With the rise of drones—both aerial and unmanned combat systems—air dominance has been seen as the “new dimension” of warfare.
However, maritime power has never been more relevant, even though many assume naval battles belong to the past. In reality, we are less prepared for maritime confrontation now than at any point in decades. Take the Black Sea as an example. On the map, it may not appear strategically decisive, but disruptions there have shown otherwise. When Russia’s actions disrupted grain exports, hunger threatened countries as far away as Egypt. Without freedom of navigation, Ukraine and Romania cannot export grain fast enough to African markets. Unlike the U.S., which sells at higher prices, Eastern European exporters depend heavily on these markets. This illustrates how maritime disruptions quickly cascade into global instability.
Another example is the Strait of Hormuz, where a handful of irregular forces—or terrorist groups—can threaten international shipping. If tankers carrying oil or liquefied natural gas are blocked, the consequences ripple globally. Insurance rates skyrocket, transport becomes riskier and more expensive, alternative routes take longer, and energy prices rise. The result is higher costs for Japan, South Korea, and other energy importers, and ultimately, upward pressure on worldwide inflation. These examples underscore why maritime superiority is not only about naval combat but also about securing the global economic system.
And then there is the Suez Canal. Imagine a scenario where disruptions cut Egyptian canal revenue by 60 percent. That would plunge Egypt—and potentially surrounding countries—into severe recession, if not outright economic crisis. This is why maritime power is often underestimated. Its absence is felt immediately.
Look not only at Russia, whose sole aircraft carrier has been effectively sidelined and whose Black Sea Fleet has been badly damaged, but at China. Beijing has been investing enormous resources into upgrading and expanding its navy. At the same time, it has sought access to overseas naval bases. The most visible example is Djibouti, where multiple foreign powers now operate. However, China has also looked to the Middle East—including Syria and even unstable Yemen—as well as Sudan and Somalia. The goal is clear: long-term global maritime access. They understand that projecting power at sea never goes out of style. Western states, by contrast, have leaned so heavily on air dominance that they have allowed maritime preparedness to lag dangerously behind.
The vulnerabilities are obvious. Even small, inexpensive craft like Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps speedboats—designed for asymmetrical warfare—can harass and threaten U.S. nuclear-powered vessels. They are not “super-ships,” but they do not have to be. Persistent harassment degrades freedom of navigation. That is why many in Congress and policy circles have long argued for the U.S. to devote more attention to naval capabilities.
The U.S. is not nearly as far behind as the United Kingdom, which once led the world in naval power. Britain’s naval capacity has diminished to a fraction of its former strength. Today, it still deploys alongside the U.S. in operations such as those against the Houthis, but its ability to project independent naval power has been reduced significantly. Meanwhile, threats to maritime security have multiplied.
Some of those threats sound like they belong in history books—pirates, for instance. However, piracy has returned in very real ways, with groups in the Red Sea and the western Indian Ocean forging links with actors like the Houthis and al-Shabaab. Attacks have reached as far as Indian waters. What once seemed like a relic of maritime legend is now a modern, destabilizing force.
Jacobsen: To sum up: the sea remains an essential domain of conflict. Air power is not overvalued, but maritime superiority is undervalued. Add cyber warfare into the mix, and it becomes clear that modern conflict spans multiple domains simultaneously.
Tsukerman: The challenge for Western powers is to rebalance—recognizing that air, sea, and cyber all play decisive roles in maintaining security and strategic advantage.
Jacobsen: Thank you.
Tsukerman: My pleasure.
Jacobsen: Perfect. Thanks again. 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): 2025/08/22
Chip Lupo is an experienced personal finance writer currently contributing to WalletHub. With a background in journalism from Elon University, he has worked across various sectors, including finance, sports, politics, and religion. Chip has expertise in SEO best practices, content creation, and editing and proficiency in Microsoft and Adobe applications. His career spans over two decades, during which he has held roles as a compliance analyst, wire editor, and night city editor. Chip’s passion for media and communications drives his commitment to high-quality content.
In this interview, Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Chip Lupo examine the 2024 Women’s Equality Report rankings across U.S. states. Hawaii leads nationally, excelling in education, health, workplace equality, and political empowerment, followed by California, Minnesota, Maine, and New Mexico. At the bottom are Utah, Texas, Wyoming, Idaho, and Missouri, where cultural traditions, political conservatism, and limited progressive policies influence outcomes. The rankings heavily weight workplace environment and education/health, with income disparity as a key subcategory. Lupo stresses that economic opportunity is the foundation for women’s advancement. The report draws from credible federal and nonprofit sources to guide policy and improve equality.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Once again, we are here with the wonderful Chip Lupo to discuss what helps certain states achieve higher rankings in the Women’s Equality Report for the United States. Since the 1920 ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment—prohibiting sex-based discrimination in voting—there has been significant progress. Yet, as of 2024, the United States still ranks just forty-third globally in gender equality.
Let us start with the top five states. Hawaii leads the nation, securing top-five rankings across all categories and the number one position in education and health. Close behind are California at number two—with standout performance in workplace environment, political empowerment, and education and health—and Minnesota at number three, where women nearly match men in education and employment outcomes. Maine and New Mexico complete the top five, excelling across a range of equality indicators.
On the other end of the spectrum, the bottom five states are Utah (fiftieth), Texas (forty-ninth), Wyoming (forty-eighth), Idaho (forty-seventh), and Missouri (forty-sixth). Notably, despite its ranking, Utah will have a record number of women lawmakers in its 2025 legislature—around 30 percent of its membership. Across the United States, women will hold 33.2 percent of state legislative seats in 2025, with states such as California, New Mexico, and Colorado achieving female legislative majorities.
Chip Lupo: Hawaii’s lead is not surprising, as it ranks consistently high across workplace equality, political empowerment, and health and education. California and Minnesota also benefit from relatively small gender pay gaps, stronger workplace protections, and significant female representation in political leadership. Maine and New Mexico show that a balanced approach across multiple equality measures can lift a state into the top tier.
Jacobsen: That raises the question—what explains the low rankings for the bottom five?
Lupo: Several of these states, particularly Louisiana, Arkansas, and parts of Texas, have cultural and political traditions that remain more conservative regarding gender roles. Texas is unique because, although there are progressive urban centers, much of the state consists of smaller, lower-income areas where traditional gender expectations are more common. Utah and Idaho differ somewhat but also reflect political and cultural environments that do not prioritize women’s equality to the same degree as the top-ranking states.
Utah, in particular, still has a culture that remains predominantly traditional, even though the state has seen an influx of people from elsewhere. The cultural foundation in Utah is still heavily rooted in the LDS Church, and as such, it continues to embrace traditional gender roles. A significant portion of Idaho’s population shares similar influences—Idaho borders Utah, and LDS culture has some impact there as well. Beyond LDS affiliation, church life in general tends to be more prevalent in these regions. As a result, political leadership in these areas often votes less progressively than in other states.
Jacobsen: Looking at the data, Idaho ranks thirty-eighth, forty-eighth, and forty-eighth across the three main categories, while Utah ranks dead last in two of them. The rankings are based on three major dimensions: workplace environment, education and health, and political empowerment. Workplace environment and education and health are each weighted at forty points, while political empowerment carries twenty points, for a total of one hundred.
These weightings are not always obvious from a quick glance at the rankings. For example, in the top five states, education and health rankings range anywhere from sixth to twenty-ninth, yet their overall placement remains high because of strong performance in other areas.
When breaking down these categories, what was the rationale behind such a heavy weighting for education and health, along with the triple weighting of income disparity within workplace environment?
Lupo: It is an interesting breakdown, but it makes sense that women’s equality begins—and often ends—with the workplace. The starting point for equality in any demographic is economic opportunity. That is why the workplace environment should be weighted heavily; it is the entry point. When someone is gainfully employed, they are more likely to aspire to bigger and better things, including a move into politics.
Education and health are also critical, but the disparities in educational attainment still need work. One interesting aspect here is the metric on doctor visit affordability—it is not entirely clear why that would be weighted as heavily as it is. Nevertheless, I fully support the workplace environment having significant weight, because economic empowerment is the foundation. Once women have that foothold, they can advance into the political arena.
When it comes to disparity in advanced educational attainment, that is often an access issue. Addressing it would require reshaping public policy in states where these numbers lag behind.
Jacobsen: Even though the categories share similar weightings at the high end, what do you find to be the most interesting factor among the seventeen subcategories used in the ranking?
Lupo: For me, it still comes back to the workplace. The most interesting factor to me in the workplace category is income disparity, which has been debated for as long as I can remember. The disparity in the share of minimum-wage workers is another metric I found noteworthy. It was weighted somewhat less, as was the disparity in the average number of work hours. These are intriguing to me because minimum wage—being an entry-level wage—should not, in principle, be gender-specific.
It surprised me to see a measurable disparity in the share of minimum-wage workers by gender. Minimum wage rates are set by either federal law or state and local governments. So, to find a gap in the proportion of men and women working at minimum wage levels seemed unusual.
Jacobsen: My last question concerns the data sources. For this report, they included the U.S. Census Bureau, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the National Women’s Law Center, the Institute for Women’s Policy Research, The Nation’s Report Card, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Center for American Women and Politics. Why these sources? And for those who might not know, why is it important to rely on national or federal sources when conducting analyses that may influence policymakers and decision-makers?
Lupo: Most of our studies are heavily driven by government data, such as from the Census Bureau, BLS, and EEOC. What we try to do is balance those official figures with input from reputable think tanks and nonprofit organizations—like the National Women’s Law Center and the Center for American Women and Politics. These provide credible, independent perspectives.
We do this because we do not want our results to be based solely on government statistics, which can sometimes leave too much room for interpretation. By drawing from a well-rounded set of sources relevant to the topic, we can produce a more balanced and credible analysis.
Jacobsen: Any final thoughts to tie this all together?
Lupo: Looking at geographic trends, I would say that in the bottom ten states, many are lower-income, largely rural, and still embrace traditional gender roles. That seems to be a consistent pattern. For the top five states, there is no clear geographic link, but if you compare them to an electoral college map, I think you will find that they tend to be more progressive politically.
Jacobsen: Very interesting. Chip, as always, thank you very much for your time. I will be in touch soon.
Lupo: Sounds good.
Jacobsen: Excellent. Thank you.
Lupo: 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): 2025/08/21
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 August 15, 2025, interview, Scott Douglas Jacobsen speaks with national security lawyer and geopolitical analyst Irina Tsukerman about global flashpoints. Tsukerman addresses Ukraine’s battlefield stalemate and the underreported impact of Ukrainian strikes on Russian infrastructure, critiques U.S. tariff policy and Brazil’s strategic rise in BRICS, and analyzes instability in Mali, Sudan’s humanitarian crisis, and the global spread of FGM. She discusses rising antisemitism in France, its political and cultural roots, and the Taliban’s increasing international normalization despite entrenched repression and ties to terrorist groups. The conversation highlights how selective media narratives distort public understanding of complex geopolitical realities.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: This is the Everywhere Insiders 11. Our sources today are Associated Press (AP News). We are here once again with the distinguished Irina Tsukerman, a New York-based national security lawyer and geopolitical analyst.
Ukrainian defences are facing challenges. Independent sources confirm that the heaviest pressure is currently in Donetsk and Sumy, where several attacks occurred today. Ahead of the summit, what are your indications about the front line and the war, not focusing on Alaska, which will be covered in another session, but on the present war context?
Irina Tsukerman: It has not been as dramatic as some portray. Russia now controls roughly 20% of Ukrainian territory, down from about 27% in 2022. Its advances through the front lines tend to be temporary. Moscow has been sending waves of troops in costly assaults to break through, plant a flag, take a photo for propaganda purposes, and then retreat or be pushed back. Progress has been minimal. Russia deployed approximately 110,000 troops in recent days, but even officially acknowledged breaches have been minor and quickly reversed.
For propaganda value, however, that is the narrative most people hear—Russia making significant claims. Russian state media, isolationist voices abroad, and so-called “pro-peace” rather than “pro-victory” advocates are portraying these moves as breakthroughs ahead of the summit. In reality, the situation is closer to a stalemate.
Ukraine, meanwhile, has been striking Russian energy infrastructure, including a major oil refinery, causing significant economic disruption. Gasoline prices inside Russia have risen, and there is growing concern among Russian officials because the most recent Ukrainian attack was massive in scale. However, coverage of this has been limited compared to the attention given to Russia’s small territorial gains. In reality, the energy strike was a far more consequential development.
This underreporting is telling. For example, Bloomberg recently ran the headline, “Ukraine Claims Attack on Hub for Major Russian Oil Pipelines.” However, what does “claims attack” mean? Either the facility was struck or it was not. Additional Russian energy assets have been hit in drone attacks—about fifteen in total by some counts. Such vague or cautious reporting obscures the fact that the conflict is neither one-sided nor moving decisively in Russia’s favour.
It remains highly asymmetrical, and success is not always neatly measurable in territory gained. So, who truly has the upper hand?
Jacobsen: Russia temporarily breached the front line but did not get far—or Ukraine, after causing massive damage to Russia’s internal energy infrastructure? This should at least be a matter of discussion and debate, yet it has faded remarkably.
Tsukerman: The positive stories for Ukraine fade almost before they gain traction, while negative stories are amplified tremendously by social media commentators. I do not mean actual defence analysts writing for professional publications; I mean self-declared experts on social media. Many of these people want Russia to be doing better than it is, and I am struggling to understand why. Is it to save face for Trump, who is inviting the leader of a relatively small economy to Alaska to meet with him? Russia’s GDP is smaller than that of some individual U.S. states, which makes the invitation seem absurd.
Yes, Russia has been able to do a great deal with limited resources in terms of spreading propaganda and engaging various actors in sabotage across Europe. However, does that make the country “great” or its head of state worth meeting and honouring with a U.S. visit? I do not think so. Some people are even trying to spin the Alaska visit as a strategic message—”Alaska is ours”—but why would you need to send such a message? Why care what Russian propaganda says?
Equally disturbing is the fact that Russia-linked attack on U.S. federal court systems, yet that incident barely registers in public discourse. Instead, the focus is on Russia breaching the Ukrainian front lines, which is portrayed as a significant development. A sign of what? They have been fighting for three and a half years without achieving strategic success. Occasional tactical gains and setbacks are inevitable in such a conflict, but overall, Russia is not winning.
It is unclear why the media covers the story the way it does, but it is not helping foster a comprehensive understanding of the conflict. Russia is exploiting Trump’s weaknesses, but in reality, it has a weak hand.
One more point on Gaza: the disproportionate coverage is overwhelming.
Jacobsen: Brazil’s President Lula has announced $5.5 billion in credits for exporters hit by U.S. tariffs. What does this tell you about Lula, and what does it indicate about the broader impact of Trump’s tariffs? I am also noting the Q1’s economic contraction in the United States.
Tsukerman: Lula is doing what he needs to do to protect the interests of Brazilian exporters. Trump, meanwhile, is imposing what amounts to an unconstitutional tax on U.S. exporters. Americans are getting hit from both sides—on imports, we pay higher prices due to tariffs; on exports, there is an additional burden. Other countries are also retaliating with tariffs, so U.S. producers are squeezed in every direction.
More broadly, this is troubling because Brazil, despite its economic challenges, is rising as a defence-producing state and playing an increasingly active role in BRICS. Internal BRICS trade volume is now outpacing their collective trade with the BRICS-G7 trade. This does not mean they have surpassed the U.S.—the U.S. remains the world’s leading economy—but the fact that the U.S. is being increasingly excluded from major trade alliances and exchanges is a sign of strategic and economic struggle.
Other countries are now being forced to compensate their producers for losses caused by U.S. tariffs. This is making everyone poorer and contributing to a decline in productivity across the board. That benefits no one. The global economy thrives on robust trade. Trump does not seem to understand that imposing high tariffs—such as on imports of coffee from Brazil—will not help American farmers. We do not grow coffee in the U.S., so the only effect is to make it more expensive for American consumers.
If he had said this was a way to pay down the national debt and that it would be a temporary measure until progress was made, at least that would have been an understandable, if debatable, goal. However, he is not doing that. It is neither temporary nor consistent nor fair in its application, and it is not paying off the debt, because the debt keeps rising, and no one knows where all the revenue is going. Trump has claimed he “made trillions,” but if that is true, I would like to know where it went, given that the U.S. government has had to borrow another $5 trillion in its latest budget.
If the tariff policy is so successful in generating revenue, why are we not seeing the promised results? Moreover, ironically, Brazilian defence companies are investing in American ammunition—something not widely reported because it does not fit the preferred narrative. So why are foreign contractors winning tenders for the production of essential ammunition, while American companies are not stepping up with competitive offers? That is a question worth discussing. However, once again, the media is ignoring it, preferring to promote the Trumpian narrative that “Americans are now producing everything.” That is not true.
Jacobsen: Turning to Africa—Mali’s military rulers have arrested two generals and a suspected French agent, among others, in an alleged coup plot. The accusation is that this was an attempt to destabilize the country. The announcement was made by Mali’s Security Minister, General Daoud Aly Mohammedine, who stated that a full investigation is underway and that the situation is “completely under control.”
Tsukerman: This is the first sign that the situation is not under control. If you need to arrest people for plotting a coup—assuming the coup is real—that shows deeply ingrained dissatisfaction with the way Mali is being run. Moreover, there is genuine cause for concern: jihadist activity across West Africa, especially in the pro-Russian junta bloc that broke away from ECOWAS, has been rising sharply. Jihadists have made significant advances, and Russia has not been effective in stopping them. So there is reason for members of the military to be uneasy about the country’s direction.
If, on the other hand, the coup is fabricated, then the junta’s leadership is simply paranoid. In that case, the question becomes: what are they trying to distract from? The most likely answer is that, even if there is no significant opposition within the armed forces, the economic and security problems are growing. A fabricated coup plot is an effective way to redirect public attention to a manufactured threat, rather than confronting real challenges.
Either way, it is not a good look for Mali. Whether the coup threat is genuine or fictitious, the country appears unstable—despite claims that the situation is “completely under control.”
Other countries are now being forced to compensate their producers for losses caused by U.S. tariffs. This is making everyone poorer and contributing to a decline in productivity across the board. That benefits no one. The global economy thrives on robust trade. Trump does not seem to understand that imposing high tariffs—such as on imports of coffee from Brazil—will not help American farmers. We do not grow coffee in the U.S., so the only effect is to make it more expensive for American consumers.
If he had said this was a way to pay down the national debt and that it would be a temporary measure until progress was made, at least that would have been an understandable, if debatable, goal. However, he is not doing that. It is neither temporary nor consistent nor fair in its application, and it is not paying off the debt, because the debt keeps rising, and no one knows where all the revenue is going. Trump has claimed he “made trillions,” but if that is true, I would like to know where it went, given that the U.S. government has had to borrow another $5 trillion in its latest budget.
If the tariff policy is so successful in generating revenue, why are we not seeing the promised results? Moreover, ironically, Brazilian defence companies are manufacturing American ammunition—something not widely reported because it does not fit the preferred narrative. So why are foreign contractors winning tenders for the production of essential ammunition, while American companies are not stepping up with competitive offers? That is a question worth discussing. However, once again, the media is ignoring it, preferring to promote the Trumpian narrative that “Americans are now producing everything.” That is not true.
Jacobsen: Turning to Africa—Mali’s military rulers have arrested two generals and a suspected French agent, among others, in an alleged coup plot. The accusation is that this was an attempt to destabilize the country. The announcement was made by Mali’s Security Minister, General Daoud Aly Mohammedine, who stated that a full investigation is underway and that the situation is “completely under control.”
Tsukerman: This is the first sign that the situation is not under control. If you need to arrest people for plotting a coup—assuming the coup is real—that shows deeply ingrained dissatisfaction with the way Mali is being run. Moreover, there is genuine cause for concern: jihadist activity across West Africa, especially in the pro-Russian junta bloc that broke away from ECOWAS, has been rising sharply. Jihadists have made significant advances, and Russia has not been effective in stopping them. So there is reason for members of the military to be uneasy about the country’s direction.
If, on the other hand, the coup is fabricated, then the junta’s leadership is simply paranoid. In that case, the question becomes: what are they trying to distract from? The most likely answer is that, even if there is no significant opposition within the armed forces, the economic and security problems are growing. A fabricated coup plot is an effective way to redirect public attention to a manufactured threat, rather than confronting real challenges.
Either way, it is not a good look for Mali. Whether the coup threat is genuine or fictitious, the country appears unstable—despite claims that the situation is “completely under control.”
Jacobsen: Approximately 10 million people are currently internally displaced.
Tsukerman: Another issue that is not being clearly stated by the UN is that the so-called internationally recognized government has hardly more legitimacy than the rebels—its advantage lies only in the fact that more countries happen to support it. This conflict began between two warlords: one more willing to align with Islamists from the former al-Bashir regime, and the other more willing to align with Russia, assorted mercenaries, and other backers. Officially, the latter is secular, but in reality, both operate on tribal and sectarian lines.
The core problem is that both men seek power for its own sake. They have no regard for human life, no interest in governing the country effectively, and every interest in maintaining their control at any cost. They effectively halted Sudan’s planned transition to an entirely civilian government, plunging the country into further chaos.
The UN should acknowledge that rejecting the rebel government is not enough—it should also cease supporting the official authorities until they stop their abuses and, at the very least, restore humanitarian access to those in need. That access has been deliberately restricted, creating a real and deadly famine inside Sudan.
Both of these generals are extremely destabilizing.
Jacobsen: On another note, in Gambia, three women have been charged in connection with the death of a one-month-old girl in a female genital mutilation (FGM) case. We can highlight the broader implications of this issue. More than 230 million women and girls worldwide are survivors of FGM, most of them in sub-Saharan Africa, according to UN estimates. In the past eight years alone, some 30 million women globally have been cut—primarily in Africa, but also in Asia and the Middle East. The procedure is typically performed by older women or traditional community practitioners using tools such as razor blades. These cause serious bleeding and can lead to severe complications later in life, particularly during childbirth.
Tsukerman: This is unlikely to improve, given that USAID funding for humanitarian and educational needs in African countries has been reduced to negligible levels. The restructuring of the State Department, which eliminated many positions related to Africa and other critical regions, will also make it harder for the U.S. to lead in combating FGM and advancing women’s and children’s rights.
This creates an opportunity for the rest of the international community to step in—by donating funds, sharing best practices, sending experienced practitioners to educate families, and fostering cultural change. While FGM is sometimes justified on religious grounds, especially by radical groups, it is essentially a cultural and tribal practice.
Some countries, such as Egypt, have made progress through dedicated campaigns. However, in less developed countries with weaker infrastructure, lower education levels, and entrenched tribal customs, the battle is much more difficult. In rural areas with limited internet access, poor public schooling, and little government enforcement of anti-FGM laws, the outcomes are often tragic. Supporting governments in addressing these concerns directly is a critical step toward ending the practice.
Training local community leaders, providing accurate medical information, and educating people is a long and challenging process. It requires dedication, resources, and sustained attention. This problem will not solve itself, in part because of its psychological dimension. Victims of FGM often experience a form of Stockholm Syndrome—they may sympathize with the cultural norms of their community, want to fit in, or fear being ostracized by their families if they do not continue the practice with their daughters.
In such cases, victims can become perpetrators, perpetuating the cycle of oppression. Women in these positions need psychological support and counselling—not solely a law-enforcement response. For children removed from families that refuse education or compliance with government mandates, there must be systems in place to place them with relatives or trusted community members, ensuring they maintain access to their cultural environment and do not become isolated due to outside intervention.
This is a sensitive issue that is also spreading from Africa to Western countries with migrant communities from FGM-practicing regions. Even in places where laws forbid it and police actively track offenders, the practice sometimes continues covertly. Entire underground industries have grown around FGM, with practitioners making money from the procedure. These individuals, along with those who profit from child marriage, have a vested interest in maintaining the practice.
Often, FGM is not an isolated custom—it is intertwined with arranged marriages, child marriages, and, in some cases, the sale of girls to older, wealthier men. The practice is sometimes used to increase a girl’s “value” or dowry in such arrangements. Tackling FGM effectively requires addressing these related cultural practices simultaneously.
Jacobsen: French President Emmanuel Macron has vowed justice after unknown attackers chopped down a tree honouring Ilan Halimi, a murdered Jewish man. Any thoughts?
Tsukerman: The original Ilan Halimi case is horrific enough on its own. Halimi, a young Sephardic Jew, was kidnapped in 2006 by a group calling itself the “Gang of Barbarians.” They targeted him because he was Jewish, assuming that his family must be wealthy. What began as an abduction for ransom turned into a prolonged ordeal in which Halimi was tortured and mutilated before dying from his injuries.
The gang members were unrepentant, and the case epitomized a strain of antisemitism rooted in ignorance, greed, and entrenched stereotypes about Jews and money. Sadly, this was not an isolated incident; other attacks have been motivated by similar prejudices, even against Jews who were not wealthy.
The recent attack on the memorial tree is a disturbing sign that such antisemitism not only persists but is evolving—now targeting the memory of Jewish victims, even when no financial motive exists. This represents pure, unconditional hatred. Finding the culprit may prove difficult without surveillance footage or a repeat offence. However, more concerning than this single act is the broader proliferation of extremism, antisemitism, and fanaticism toward Jews, some of which is embedded in local culture.
Some of this antisemitism is rooted in politics, with radical left and radical correct elements aligning. Some stems from extremist versions of religion being tolerated or proliferating both in mass gatherings and online. Some is less about religion and more about ingrained antisemitic attitudes and a lack of education among children and young people in cloistered communities, whether recent migrants or their descendants.
All of it is alarming because no matter how many financial resources are devoted to the problem, without sending a clear message that such attitudes will not be tolerated, little will change. The French government does not appear to have a clear strategy for dealing with the social and cultural spread of antisemitism and the propaganda fueling it. There is an unwillingness to confront specific subgroups where these attitudes are particularly prevalent.
While the general education system may not promote antisemitism, children from such communities return home each day to hear other messaging from family and peers. The real challenge is working with families to remove hatred from within communities and to make violence against Jews not just illegal but socially taboo.
So far, there has been no effective answer and not enough pushback. Beyond vandalism like cutting down a memorial tree, there are physical attacks, intimidation, and harassment against people for being Jewish, for speaking Hebrew, or simply for being perceived as Israeli. These incidents happen often enough that the perpetrators feel emboldened to target individuals or couples they see as vulnerable. That is a fundamental problem requiring more than occasional arrests—it demands a complete rethinking of how social integration is handled in France.
Jacobsen: As of today, the Taliban has begun its fifth year in power. Thoughts on this—not exactly a happy occasion from our perspective?
Tsukerman: I am surprised that Trump and Pompeo—who played a key role in bringing the Taliban to power—have not offered public congratulations, as they have in other cases, such as Trump’s remarks about Lukashenko after their call. On the plus side for the Taliban, they are now demanding that an embassy be opened in Washington. So far, they have not succeeded, and their lobbying efforts face significant challenges. Still, the fact that they have become as normalized internationally as they have—not just by this administration—is troubling.
They offer access to resources, oil and gas, strategic economic corridors, and valuable gemstones, which are difficult to extract without foreign involvement. Because of these economic considerations, many countries are increasingly willing to do business with the Taliban, overlooking their gross human rights violations and public ties to al-Qaeda. Russia has taken the lead in politically normalizing them—first removing their terrorist designation, then engaging with them in forums on education and business, and eventually recognizing them publicly. This is ironic given that the Taliban originally emerged fighting Soviet forces.
Russia is not alone; other countries are also engaging. Even India is reaching out, though it remains far from full normalization. I expect the number of countries granting the Taliban at least provisional recognition to increase. There is no willpower to dislodge them from power, and the Afghan opposition movements abroad have been ineffective. Some are corrupt, some fail to understand the political landscape, and others waste energy fighting among themselves for recognition.
For now, the Taliban is firmly entrenched in power, with no visible pathway to change. More concerning is that they are not confining themselves to Afghanistan while building international legitimacy—they are also providing political and possibly logistical support to terrorist organizations. They have coordinated with the Houthis in Yemen, engaged with al-Qaeda, had tactical relations with ISIS-K in Afghanistan, and even communicated with Hamas. Russian military advisers are allegedly training Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters in camps across the country, suggesting an ambition to integrate into a broader Islamist jihadist network over time.
For now, their focus remains on the economy and international legitimacy, but their hardline policies on women and other issues have only grown more entrenched. There has been no moderation—if anything, their rule has become more repressive.
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): 2025/08/20
Dr. Elizabeth Weiss is an American anthropologist and Professor Emeritus of Anthropology at San José State University, renowned for her work in bioarchaeology and the scientific study of human skeletal remains. She earned her B.A. from the University of California, Santa Cruz, her M.A. from California State University, Sacramento, and her Ph.D. in Environmental Dynamics from the University of Arkansas. A former postdoctoral researcher at the Canadian Museum of Civilization, Weiss has published extensively on osteology, human evolution, and repatriation debates. She is a vocal advocate for academic freedom, evidence-based anthropology, and preserving scientific access to skeletal collections for research and education.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen interviews Dr. Elizabeth Weiss, an anthropologist and Professor Emeritus at San José State University. Weiss argues human remains are scientific evidence, not sacred objects, and warns that reframing bodies—and even realistic replicas—as sacred undermines research, education, and forensic training. She cites the Smithsonian’s removal of the “Written in Bone” exhibit despite descendant consent as emblematic of shifting standards driven by politics and beliefs. Laws like NAGPRA and expanding consent requirements, she contends, converge progressive and conservative agendas to restrict study. The result, Weiss says, is emptied classrooms, fewer osteologists, and custodial anthropology policing access over discovery today.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: We are here with Dr. Elizabeth Weiss, an American anthropologist and Professor Emeritus of Anthropology at San José State University. In June 2023, she reached a settlement with the university that allowed her to voluntarily retire effective May 2024, with full benefits and emeritus status.
Dr. Weiss earned her B.A. in Anthropology from the University of California, Santa Cruz, in 1996, followed by her M.A. in Anthropology from California State University, Sacramento, in 1998. She completed her Ph.D. in Environmental Dynamics at the University of Arkansas in 2001. From 2002 to 2004, she held a postdoctoral research position at the Canadian Museum of Civilization, now the Canadian Museum of History.
Let us talk about anthropology. Why is the body not considered sacred, and why do some people believe that it is?
Dr. Elizabeth Weiss: Anthropology is a broad discipline composed of several subfields, including cultural anthropology, biological anthropology, archaeology, and linguistic anthropology. My focus has been primarily in biological anthropology, specifically using bioarchaeological methods to reconstruct past lifestyles through human skeletal remains. I have taught courses such as osteology, human evolution, and forensics, and my research relies heavily on CT scans, X-rays, and skeletal metrics.
In anthropology, human skeletal remains are typically regarded as valuable sources of data. Whether in forensic anthropology or bioarchaeology, these remains help us reconstruct past lives—learning about activity patterns, health, disease, causes of death, and everyday lifeways.
Within this field, the body has long been seen not as sacred but as a scientific resource. Remains are studied, shared for educational and research purposes, and documented through photographs, X-rays, and publications. This approach views the human body—especially after death—as a means to better understand humanity’s past.
However, some cultures and belief systems do regard the body as sacred. Ancient Egypt is a well-known example: the practice of mummification reflected a belief that preserving the body was essential for the afterlife. Tales of the “mummy’s curse” echo that cultural sanctity.
Many religious societies also distinguish between spiritual belief and the physical body. For instance, organ donation—once rare and controversial in many Catholic countries—is now much more accepted, demonstrating a shift away from the idea that the body must remain untouched after death.
Today, there is also a growing movement to reframe the body as sacred in the context of consent. This has been intensified by cases like Henrietta Lacks, whose cancer cells were taken without her consent and led to major scientific advances—raising important questions about autonomy, consent, and ethics in handling human biological materials.
This issue has become particularly charged in anthropology. In 2021, I posted a photo of myself holding a human skull with the caption “So happy to be back with some old friends @SJSU.” What had previously been a commonplace image—even used for promotional purposes—sparked significant backlash. I was subsequently removed as curator of the skeletal collection and locked out of the facility.
Believing the reaction to be retaliatory and a violation of my academic freedom, I filed a lawsuit in 2022. In June 2023, we reached a settlement that allowed me to retire voluntarily in May 2024 with emeritus status and pursue new opportunities, such as a faculty fellowship with Heterodox Academy’s Center for Academic Pluralism.
I have long maintained that the human body, particularly in death, offers invaluable scientific insights and that respecting the dead does not preclude rigorous study. The pushback I encountered reflects evolving cultural norms, especially around consent and cultural respect, and represents a renewed tension between science and sacred values.
And I was told by my colleagues, “But it’s different—because it’s human.” These were anthropological conflicts. I said, “Well, if you do not believe in the concept of the sacred, or in a spirit or soul for humans, then it is not different.” They said, “Yes. Yes. It’s different. It’s different.”
I responded, “It’s… not?” But what is interesting is what happened next. I thought that was a winning argument.
What I did not expect was that from 2020 onward, more and more people in academia and museums began claiming that the human body is sacred again. For example, the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution has stated they would not display any skeletal remains—even photographs of remains—if consent had not been given. In some cases, that means consent dating back 350 years, which predates the invention of photography. It is essentially an impossible standard.
Another development was that some Indigenous communities began claiming that not only are human remains sacred, but the remains of nonhuman animals may also be sacred. Some assert that if an animal embodies a human spirit, then that animal’s remains are likewise sacred and should not be displayed.
Now we have these moving goalposts. You cannot argue logic with religion or mythology. Religion, mythology, and folklore are valid cultural aspects and important to understanding human behavior. But the issue arises when anthropologists begin treating these myths as scientific facts. When they say, for instance, that an animal has a human spirit and therefore its remains must be treated as sacred, that is no longer an interpretation—it is treated as historical truth.
That is one direction the field is heading in: the remains of nonhuman animals are now also being regarded as untouchable.
But it does not stop at anthropology. We are beginning to see concerns in the medical and research fields as well. Some people are now arguing against organ donation or the use of donated bodies for research if there was not clear, explicit consent. One case I discuss in an article involves death row prisoners—where the issue was not consent, but mutual consent.
For example, if I were to die and tell my husband, “They can do whatever they want with my body,” he should be able to make that decision. Yet, in some cases, the decision is being turned into something much broader. In Indigenous studies, for example, it is now often argued that the whole tribe must consent, or that a large extended family must agree.
In that framework, my own mother might have no say over what happens to my body.
This is what happens when you turn these decisions into religious or spiritual debates—it stops being sensible or consistent. It becomes arbitrary. One person is allowed to consent, while another is not, based purely on their group identity. In the end, the loudest, most religious voices tend to win.
Jacobsen: Can you give an example of how this has played out in practice?
Weiss: Yes. One example is the Smithsonian’s exhibit Written in Bone. It focused on colonial-era skeletal remains from Jamestown and integrated bioarchaeology and forensic science. It examined causes of death and even included facial reconstructions. There was a temporary physical exhibit, and then a permanent online version aimed at educators—middle school through high school level.
But the Smithsonian shut it down. They removed the website entirely. In its place, there is now an apology: We’re sorry we displayed these remains without consent.
But they did have consent. They had consent from the descendants of those colonialists—people who specifically approved of the educational use of the remains. Yet, that was no longer considered valid enough.
And there is even a line in that apology that says something like, “Although the descendants supported this exhibit, we recognize that we should have been more sensitive.”
So again, it is the most sensitive, the most religious voices that are drawing the boundaries—rather than the most objective ones. That is another example.
This trend is going to expand into all sorts of fields, and we are going to lose valuable data because of it—especially forensic data. Most people do not realize this, but many forensic anthropologists get their first hands-on experience in archaeological classrooms, labs, or field schools. If we lose access to human skeletal remains, we lose the ability to show students real bones—experiences that often spark a lifelong interest in the field. A model is not an adequate substitute.
When I was first criticized in 2020 for posting a photo with skeletal remains—and for my book Repatriation and Erasing the Past—one of the first things people said was, “Why don’t you make replicas? Three-dimensional printed bones? Then you can give the real bones back.”
I responded that there are several reasons this does not work. First, a replica is not the same as the real thing. Second, it is difficult and costly to make accurate replicas. But the main reason is this: as replicas become more realistic, the same people who argue that the body is sacred are now starting to claim that replicas are sacred too.
There are already tribes who say that if a replica of a bone is “real enough,” then it should be treated as sacred. Some even claim that authentic-looking replicas should be considered as protected as actual human remains. And museums are literally destroying replicas because of these demands.
So, you might think, “I will appease this group by giving back the original and keeping a replica for education.” But it does not stop there. You cannot appease people who are making religious arguments in a scientific context. The demands escalate—more extreme repatriations, more destruction of data, more hiding of information.
And this does not stop with human remains. We are now seeing it with artifacts as well. If you think about book banning, the pattern is similar. At first it is, “We do not want these images.” Then it is, “We do not want these words.” Or, “We do not want these books available to this group.” Then suddenly it is, “We do not want these books available at all.”
It always escalates. It escalates because these arguments are not rooted in logic or scientific reasoning. They are rooted in emotion and belief. When that is the framework, people keep moving the goalposts.
Jacobsen: What do you think this means for anthropology as a science, particularly in American academic departments? And what will it mean for the rigor of scientific inquiry?
Weiss: For anthropology, it could well mean the shutdown of biological anthropology that involves the study of skeletal remains.
Certain aspects of biological anthropology might still survive—such as genetics—in part because there are relatively few institutions that do that work, and it is expensive. The bar to entry is high, so those programs will likely protect themselves better. Genetics is also more abstract—less visually or emotionally charged than working with bones.
What we are seeing now, especially in California, is that classrooms are being emptied of skeletal remains, regardless of whether they are Indigenous or not. Some universities are no longer allowing skeletal materials to be used in teaching at all.
There are institutions in California where you cannot even show a photograph of skeletal remains in an anthropology class slideshow. Cal State Bakersfield is one example. That is where we are now—images are being censored, and physical remains are being removed from classrooms.
The consequence? We will have fewer well-trained anthropologists—and therefore, fewer well-trained forensic anthropologists.
For example, one of the things anthropologists are working on is how to distinguish between skeletal remains from historic Indigenous individuals—say, 100 to 300 years old—and the remains of recent border crossers. That is a key forensic question. Was this death recent? Was it a crime? Or was it due to the dangers of crossing the border? How do we identify the person and contact their family? How do we bring closure?
All of that is jeopardized when we stop training anthropologists properly.
Anthropologists are also the ones who go to disaster sites—such as the World Trade Center after 9/11—to identify human fragments. That work starts in osteology classes, where we teach students all 206 bones of the body. But that is only the beginning. In the lab, students then learn how to identify much smaller fragments and distinguish between human and nonhuman remains. You cannot teach that without physical collections. It requires hands-on experience.
Anthropologists often teach anatomy in medical schools as well. If we lose access to human remains, we will see a decline in the quality of anatomical education. Many anthropologists end up in anatomy departments rather than anthropology departments—but their expertise still comes from osteological training.
These are ripple effects—not just for anthropology, but for academia as a whole. The rigor of scientific training will decline.
Another consequence is that a different type of student is now being drawn to anthropology. These are no longer the classic anthropology students—curious about the past, passionate about anatomy, eager to learn about evolution. Instead, you are seeing students more interested in guarding remains than studying them.
They become the little gatekeepers—monitoring access to collections, policing what others are allowed to say, show, or study. Anthropology shifts from being about inquiry and discovery to becoming a custodial discipline focused on restriction.
When I started in anthropology, I had three main things that drew me to the field. One of the first was my love of anatomy. I have always found skeletal anatomy especially beautiful. It reveals the intricate relationship between form and function. It is also one of the clearest examples of evolution in action.
You can look at a human skeleton and a dolphin skeleton and immediately recognize that they are both mammals, yet see how the environment shaped their bodies in dramatically different ways. My favorite chapter in The Origin of Species is Darwin’s chapter on morphology. He is even a bit witty—almost sarcastic—when he points out how all these creatures follow a shared skeletal blueprint, with different lengths and proportions. He basically asks, “Was God that boring?” It is clever and insightful.
That chapter stayed with me. My fascination with comparative anatomy and evolution was one of my core inspirations.
The second major thing that drew me to anthropology was the mystery of reconstructing past lives—especially for cultures that did not leave written records. I have always found that incredibly compelling. Even as a child, I was curious. I moved around a lot—my father is retired military—so whether I was walking around Georgia or Germany, I would wonder: What was this place like a thousand years ago? What were people doing here? What were they thinking?
That curiosity about unwritten human history is classic anthropological curiosity. It is what used to draw people into the field.
But now we are seeing a shift. Students are increasingly being drawn in not to study bones or history or evolution, but to enforce restrictions—to make sure remains are not seen unless there is a written consent form from centuries ago.
At my own university—and this is true at many in California—we are now being told that we cannot even show photographs of the boxes that contain skeletal remains, because even the containers are considered sacred.
And this leads to more and more absurd outcomes. Take the Smithsonian’s Northwest Coast Hall, which includes displays labeled “Objects of Power.” There are now claims that menstruating or pregnant women should not be near certain items. None of this makes sense unless you accept the premise of a sacred body. If you do not share that belief, then these are simply objects—calcium and phosphate, fossilized bone—data, not sacred relics.
That is where the field seems to be going.
Jacobsen: Let us close with this: What are your final thoughts on the convergence of modern political sensitivities—particularly from the progressive left—with more traditional religious ideas of sacredness? How is that convergence impacting anthropology and ethnology today, at least in the United States?
Weiss: The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act—NAGPRA—is one of the key laws that reintroduced the concept of the sacred body into anthropology. It was passed in 1990 and brought together a wide range of support.
Anthropologists at the time tended to view it as a human rights law. But in reality, it was also strongly supported by a coalition of conservative religious groups—including the Baptist Women of America, the Mennonites of America, and others—because they saw it as a religious rights law. They supported it because it treated the body as sacred.
Anthropologists denied this religious framing for a long time. But I said, “No—there is a reason why so many religious groups are backing NAGPRA. It is because it is redefining the body as sacred.”
Now, what we see in anthropology is a convergence: progressive liberals are embracing the idea of the sacred body too. In some cases, it is because Indigenous communities are being elevated within postmodern frameworks—treated as groups with historical trauma and victimhood status. There is an exaltation happening, which leads to the uncritical acceptance of any belief associated with those communities.
But it does not stop there. There are also other groups now being viewed through that lens—such as convicts whose bodies were used in anatomy classes after death. In my article, I discuss how some students today worry, “Wait a minute, most of these donated cadavers are male, and many are men of color. What does that say?”
So you have that “woke” concern on one side, and on the other side, you still have the religious right, which does not want evolution taught, does not want humans equated with animals, and also wants to keep the body sacred. Both groups are converging—strange bedfellows—on the idea that the body should not be studied or exposed. It is the classic case of politics making strange alliances.
When I first entered academia, I was relieved—thinking, Finally, a field where I do not have to deal with religiosity. But over time I realized the field was not against religion; it was against one religion—namely, Christianity.
I thought that was a real disappointment. My view has always been: silly is silly, regardless of the source. Religious claims that are superstitious or nonsensical should be treated that way—whether they come from Christian fundamentalists, Muslim creationists, or anyone else.
But what I began to notice was that I was treating all belief systems equally, and no one else around me was. Many anthropologists allowed their liberal identity politics to shape their views selectively. They would critique Christianity harshly, but then uncritically accept religious beliefs from other cultures in the name of cultural sensitivity or anti-colonialism.
And that is how we have ended up with progressive anthropologists and conservative religious groups agreeing on one key thing: humans are fundamentally different from animals, and the human body must be treated with sacred reverence.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Dr. Weiss.
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): 2025/08/19
Nnenna Onwukwe (They/Them) is the Federal Policy Associate at the Secular Coalition for America, where they advocate for church-state separation, secular inclusion in policy, and protections for religious freedom for all. In this interview with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Onwukwe discusses the new Office of Personnel Management (OPM) guidance under Director Scott Kupor. The memo, created in partnership with the White House Faith Office, permits federal employees to openly proselytize at work without consequence, raising concerns over harassment of nonreligious and minority-faith employees. Onwukwe warns this policy aligns with broader efforts by the Religious Liberty Commission to privilege certain Christian beliefs while neglecting protections for others. They outline potential workplace harms, legal gray areas, and the Coalition’s plans to provide resources for nonreligious workers facing discrimination.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, once more, we are here with the wonderful Nnenna Onwukwe. Regarding the work of the Secular Coalition for America, we have some new developments concerning the OPM guidance. Yes, it is the new Office of Personnel Management guidance under Director Scott Kupor.
Now, how long has he been in this position? One. Two, how is this partnership with the White House Faith Office not particularly good for the federal government?
Nnenna Onwukwe: Yes. Well, Scott Kupor started in July 2025. This was one of the very first pieces of guidance the OPM issued after he began his role. He worked with the White House Faith Office to create it. We believe this collaboration had been in progress for some time, as the White House Faith Office has been active in recent months.
They have worked with the Religious Liberty Commission and stated that they are focused on eliminating what they call “anti-Christian bias.” This guidance aligns with much of that work, where instead of protecting people of all religions and no religion equally, the emphasis appears to be on creating an environment in which Christians—or people of certain religions—can act without the same limitations applied to others.
Kupor oversaw this shift in federal workplace policy with the new memo. Essentially, it permits federal employees to openly proselytize on the job—trying to convert coworkers and explaining why their religion is the “right” one—without facing consequences.
Instead of simply focusing on their work, employees may now face situations where a coworker approaches them to share, for example, why Mormonism is great and why they should join. This is damaging to all employees, especially those who are nonreligious or belong to minority faiths, because it opens the door to harassment and undermines a neutral, professional workplace environment.
Jacobsen: I have worked in many places, and I am sure many others have as well—both inside and outside Canada and the United States—where harassment does occur. It can be explicit, or it can be subtle. So, they focus on “eradicating anti-Christian bias.” Do they provide actual case studies or meta-analyses, or are they simply asserting this?
Onwukwe: The Religious Liberty Commission is the body that has been tasked with eradicating what it calls anti-Christian bias, and they are trying to address this within the federal workforce. They held their first meeting a couple of months ago, and they are currently gathering data. We do not yet know what that data looks like.
We also do not know how they are defining discrimination. Is it a situation where a Christian declares their religion and is physically attacked? Or is it when a Christian expresses opposition to abortion or LGBTQ rights—positions that can be discriminatory in the workplace—and then faces consequences? From the language and priorities they have set, it sounds more like the second scenario, but at this stage, they have not released any detailed findings.
Jacobsen: So, the scenario would be something like this: a person says, “Based on my faith, I do not believe in marriage equality for homosexuals.” Someone at work responds by criticizing or pushing back against that openly stated belief. The Christian is offended by this response and files a complaint of anti-Christian bias. Is that essentially the kind of situation we are talking about?
Onwukwe: Yes, that is definitely a scenario that could happen. There is a process in place where such claims can be submitted. That kind of example seems like one of the standard situations that might arise. Another example could be people in the break room discussing the impact of the elimination of Roe v. Wade. A Christian employee could claim they were hurt or offended by that conversation, and then send an email to the relevant office stating they were discriminated against—even if, in reality, no discrimination occurred.
Jacobsen: I see. Now, previously, there were “reasonable accommodations” for religious practices. The press release talks about the OPM guidance expanding reasonable accommodations for religion. From my perspective, this seems like an overextension—taking what was already established and using it to primarily benefit certain Christian concerns.
Onwukwe: Yes. I am not entirely sure what the old guidance stated, but I can look into it and see if it is still online—if they have not removed it from the federal websites, which has happened in some cases. I do know that under existing HR guidelines, accommodations for religious observance apply to both religious and nonreligious individuals. These guidelines prohibit discrimination based on religion or lack of religion. They also allow for certain holiday observances, such as Christmas and other Christian holidays, but I am not sure of the full list.
Other than that, much of what is in the new memo goes into new territory. It states that people who are religious will be granted these accommodations, but the language is vague and leaves much room for interpretation. One question is whether these same protections will apply to non-Christians or to Christians outside certain denominations.
For example, if a Jewish employee is told by a coworker that abortion is wrong, but the Jewish faith recognizes situations in which abortion is permissible, would that Jewish employee be able to claim discrimination? Those kinds of specifics are not addressed in the memo.
The memo also goes beyond interactions between federal employees—it extends to interactions with the public. For instance, a VA doctor could speak to a patient about religion. If that patient were considering an abortion, the doctor could use religious reasoning to tell them abortion is wrong, even handing out pamphlets, instead of simply providing medical care. Similarly, a park ranger at a national park could lead a tour and then stop midway to give an hour-long talk about the Latter-day Saints, turning what should be a recreational activity into a religious information session.
Jacobsen: So, situations like that would mean it is not only federal employees who are affected—it could also impact people who do not directly work in those offices. With the VA, for example—Veterans Affairs doctors praying over patients—I can see someone like Mikey Weinstein of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation speaking very forcefully about this. I would be curious to hear his and other U.S. organizational leaders’ opinions on these cases. If the new OPM guidelines are this open-ended, it seems to me there will be a lot of people in the secular community who will be deeply concerned.
Onwukwe: Yes. For example, the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers (MAAF) is one of our coalition members, and they do excellent work advocating for atheists and the nonreligious within the military. There is already enough discrimination against nonreligious people in the military—the whole “no atheists in foxholes” stereotype still persists. This guidance adds yet another challenge for nonreligious people trying to secure benefits and fair treatment.
It is already hard enough for people navigating the VA system. This just adds another layer of difficulty. And in other federal agencies, workers are already under stress. People are facing layoffs. They are being told to return to the office after having been guaranteed remote work, sometimes after moving hundreds of miles away. This has displaced many workers and created uncertainty. On top of that, the new guidance means someone could now be required to go into the office and have a coworker—say, Susan from HR—start talking to them about her religion and handing them pamphlets. This is adding frustration on top of frustration.
Jacobsen: Are there any other points that should be added with regard to this memo? Obviously, there will be more developments in the coming weeks.
Onwukwe: Yes. It is relevant for people to know that we are currently working on guidelines for nonreligious employees—resources for those who do not want to face discrimination or harassment in the workplace and who do not want coworkers telling them which religion they should follow. We plan to release those guidelines soon.
We are looking closely at the memo, and there are many areas where problems could arise. If a supervisor tells you, “This is the religion you should follow,” and then begins harassing you, that is a serious issue. There will no doubt be cases like that under this guidance.
Jacobsen: Yes—when you have management, power imbalances, and similar dynamics, employees may not feel comfortable pushing back. They might fear that their job could be at risk if they do. With the mass layoffs that have already occurred in the federal government, some employees might feel forced to endure these situations.
Onwukwe: Exactly. That is why we want to provide guidance. We want to offer information on who people can reach out to, what areas they can challenge if they feel comfortable doing so, and make sure they understand their rights. Right now, there are not many resources available for nonreligious employees, so we want to fill that gap.
Jacobsen: A big part of this, from an anthropological and cultural studies perspective, is that the United States has been undergoing increasing secularization—significant, but far from complete. There is still a great deal of entrenched Christian resentment toward that trend. If members of that group hold seniority or management positions, they are more likely to have power over benefits and workplace decisions. Given this new leverage, their resentment could be expressed in ways that are acutely distressing for other employees.
Onwukwe: Yes, and that pushback is exactly what we are seeing from the Religious Liberty Commission and the White House Faith Office. Now, with OPM’s new memo, this appears to be their way of saying, “We have you covered, Christians in America. Do not worry about challenges to your faith—you can speak freely, and we will protect you.”
This approach specifically favors one particular type of Christianity, while ignoring every other faith and the nonreligious. It is consistent with other actions we have seen recently, and it is deeply concerning. We want people to be aware of what is happening and to know that there is work being done to protect those who are most at risk under these policies.
Jacobsen: Nnenna, thank you very much for your time again today. I appreciate your expertise.
Onwukwe: Yes, sounds good. It has been great talking to you again.
—
Supplementary commentary:
About the prior guidance federal employees had on religion before this new memo was issued, Nnenna reviewed the memo alongside Title VII information from OPM and the overall messaging on both OPM and EEOC’s websites. The federal government will technically still follow Title VII. However, the new guidance dismantles key sections. Those sections dealing with religious-based harassment and discrimination, particularly those protecting the secular community).
Section 12 of EEOC’s guidance focuses on religious discrimination in the workplace. Quotes:
- The non-discrimination provisions of….[Title VII] also protect employees who do not possess religious beliefs or engage in religious practices.[10] EEOC, as a federal government enforcement agency, and its staff, like all governmental entities, carries out its mission neutrally and without any hostility to any religion or related observances, practices, and beliefs, or lack thereof.[11]
- An employer can thus restrict religious expression when it would disrupt customer service or the workplace, including when customers or coworkers would reasonably perceive it to express the employer’s own message.[140]
- Additionally, in a government workplace, the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause and Establishment Clause may affect the employer’s or employee’s ability to restrict or engage in religious expression.
Under the Religion section of EEOC’s Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace, sample of example of religious based harassment included:
- Thiago, a fraud investigator at a property and casualty insurer, is agnostic and rejects organized religion. After Thiago’s sister died unexpectedly, Thiago is despondent. He is approached by a coworker, Laney, who says that she can communicate with the dead and has received the following messages from Thiago’s sister: the sister is suffering in Hell, and Thiago will go to Hell as well if he does not “find God.” Thiago becomes upset and asks Laney to never bring up the topic again. Nevertheless, Laney repeatedly encourages Thiago to find religion so Thiago will not “go to Hell like his sister,” despite Thiago’s ongoing requests for Laney to “drop it.” Based on these facts, Laney’s harassing conduct toward Thiago is based on religion.22
Previously, EEOC’s guidance recognized religious harassment as a grounds for discipline or unlawful conduct under Title VII. EEOC emphasized the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause on government employee’s abilities to engage in religious expression in the workplace. The new OPM memo effectively erodes those protections. This opens the grounds for nonreligious community to religious-based harassment.
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): 2025/08/16
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 wide-ranging conversation, Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Irina Tsukerman discuss the evolving U.S.–China tech rivalry. They explore semiconductor geopolitics, rare earth supply chains, AI integration, and strategic industrial policy. Tsukerman explains China’s dominance in rare earth refinement, the shortcomings of the CHIPS Act, and concerns over industrial espionage. The discussion highlights Middle Eastern AI adoption, BRICS collaboration, and growing visa restrictions impacting international researchers. With mutual distrust intensifying, both countries engage in surveillance precautions and economic retaliation. Despite conflict over advanced technologies, cooperation remains possible in low-grade chips and less-strategic raw materials.
Interview conducted August 1.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here once again with the insightful New York attorney, founder of Scarab Rising and The Washington Outsider, and also co-host of the excellent Good Men Project feature called the Everywhere Insiderswith me. Today, we are going to talk about semiconductor geopolitics and the evolving U.S.–China tech policy landscape.
So, I was listening to Fareed Zakaria — a sharp American political commentator — discuss rare earth minerals. He noted that it is not that rare earth minerals are rare, but that the refining process is complex and environmentally taxing, which makes the final usable product hard to obtain. That was a subtle point I had not considered before — a genuinely educational moment. Does that kind of insight play into this broader issue?
Irina Tsukerman: Yes — absolutely, though it is nuanced. First, let us clarify: rare earth elements (REEs) refer to a group of 17 chemically similar elements. While many of them are relatively abundant in the Earth’s crust, they are rarely found in concentrated, economically viable forms, and their extraction and refinement involve complex, hazardous, and often environmentally damaging processes. So while Zakaria is right that the refining process is a significant bottleneck, some REEs are indeed geologically scarce, and not all countries have either the deposits or the infrastructure to handle them.
China currently dominates this space, accounting for over 60% of global rare earth mining output and around 85–90% of global rare earth refining capacity, as of recent years. That gives China massive leverage, because many other countries with deposits — including the U.S. — have not invested adequately in mining or refining. Environmental regulations, cost, and lack of domestic industrial policy led countries like the U.S. to outsource this entire supply chain to China. As a result, the U.S. lacks the industrial ecosystem and trained workforce needed to scale domestic production or refinement rapidly.
So yes, this is central to the semiconductor and broader tech struggle. While the U.S. still leads in semiconductor design and advanced chip manufacturing (especially via allies like Taiwan’s TSMC), China is catching up rapidly in some areas, dominant in others (like materials processing and supply chains), and strategically using its control over rare earths and critical minerals as economic leverage.
Jacobsen: So is this industrial warfare — like strong-arming the early phases of the supply chain?
Tsukerman: Exactly. Think of it this way: the U.S. is strong in innovation and R&D, especially in chips, AI, and advanced computing. However, China, by controlling key inputs — like rare earths, gallium, and graphite — can constrain U.S. and allied manufacturing capacity from the ground up. This is why the U.S. has launched initiatives like the CHIPS and Science Act, and why there is a push to diversify rare earth supply chains — from countries like Australia, Canada, and some African nations. There are alternatives and recycling efforts underway, but none are immediate fixes.
Jacobsen: What about economic pressure — sanctions, bans, or trade controls — aimed at countries that support China’s tech dominance?
Tsukerman: The U.S. has tried several levers: export controls on advanced chips and chip-making equipment to China (especially targeting companies like SMIC), restrictions on U.S. investment in specific Chinese tech sectors (under review), and blocking Chinese firms with military or surveillance ties. Moreover, yes, Washington has also pressured allies and third-party countries — from Japan to the Netherlands — to limit high-tech exports to China, particularly in semiconductor manufacturing equipment (ASML, for example).
However, China has responded in kind. It imposed export controls on gallium and germanium, both critical to semiconductors and EVs. It is also threatened to limit exports of graphite, a key component in battery production. So, it is a tit-for-tat economic and industrial standoff — not always visible in headline-grabbing tariffs, but deeply felt in supply chain disruptions and long-term strategic positioning.
The CHIPS Act was intended not only to bolster domestic semiconductor manufacturing in the U.S., but also to regulate and prevent third-party countries from circumventing U.S. export controls, particularly those targeting China. However, this enforcement has not been fully effective for several reasons.
First, some countries are challenging to monitor or influence, especially if they lack strong compliance frameworks or strategic alignment with U.S. policies. We have to remain constantly vigilant to ensure no smuggling occurs — and, of course, some smuggling does occur. Second, it is not always the countries that are the biggest problem. Often, it is private companies operating within or across those countries that are the key actors. These may not be government entities at all — they can be intermediaries or facilitators, what you might even call modern-day privateers or profiteers, making money off of rerouting sensitive components.
Sometimes, companies do not carry out sufficient due diligence, and as a result, they unknowingly work with illegitimate intermediaries who smuggle components to China or its strategic partners. We are seeing a combination of scenarios: countries thriving on black-market operations, companies deliberately bypassing restrictions, and mercenary third-party actors exploiting legal and logistical loopholes. The more restrictions are imposed — without a corresponding increase in enforcement capacity — the more opportunities there are for smuggling, contraband, and circumvention. These illicit flows adapt quickly to pressure and find new iterations constantly.
Jacobsen: Let me raise a broader point — between the United States and China, is there any serious third competitor emerging? Not necessarily a single country — maybe a bloc, like the EU, Arab League, or others?
Tsukerman: That is a good question. We are starting to see BRICS — particularly its expanded format — position itself as a potential tech collaboration bloc. While it has not been especially successful in de-dollarization or in undermining Western economic dominance, it has made strides in exclusive tech exchanges among its member states — exchanges that deliberately exclude the West.
For instance, India, China, Russia, and others in BRICS are engaging in joint R&D efforts — not just in semiconductors, but also in quantum computing, AI, and advanced manufacturing. Much of this is still in the early to mid stages, and while not all of it is groundbreaking yet, some of the quantum research is quite concerning from a security and strategic standpoint.
Meanwhile, in the Middle East, countries like Saudi Arabia have shown strong interest in tapping into Chinese expertise to develop their own domestic semiconductor and AI sectors. Part of their motivation for seeking expanded BRICS membership was precisely this: to bypass Western dependency and gain access to non-Western tech pipelines. Saudi Arabia’s actual status within BRICS remains ambiguous — there are conflicting reports on whether it formally joined or just participated as an observer. However, their interest stemmed from a desire to diversify their strategic partnerships.
Jacobsen: So while not a full-on third superpower, we are looking at emerging coalitions with potential?
Tsukerman: And on the Western side, we are seeing a cohesive tech alliance taking shape — led by the U.S., Japan, the Netherlands, South Korea, and Taiwan. This informal bloc is collaborating on semiconductor supply chains, chip manufacturing equipment, and joint R&D, particularly as a response to China’s industrial policies. Together, they represent the core of the global advanced chip ecosystem — and this cooperation is increasingly strategic, not just commercial.
Jacobsen: But Donald Trump — being focused as he is on domestic production and trade deficits — has just imposed a 20% tariff on Taiwanese semiconductors.
Tsukerman: That is one piece of it. The other part is that he has pushed to bring semiconductor manufacturing fully into the United States, and he has also attempted to dismantle or undermine key provisions of the CHIPS Act. However, overall, none of this is working out well so far.
First of all, you simply cannot produce all semiconductors domestically — the U.S. does not have the workforce capacity to do that at scale. Even if you import highly skilled workers from Taiwan, India, or elsewhere, it defeats the very purpose of the push for “domestic manufacturing,” which is supposed to be about creating jobs for Americans. If you have to rely on foreign labour, then the logical conclusion would be: why not just manufacture where it is cheaper and more efficient?
So far, the results have been underwhelming. The new 20% tariff means that semiconductors imported from Taiwan — which are essential and already expensive — will now cost significantly more. The intention, presumably, is to incentivize domestic production, but we simply do not have enough STEM-trained engineers to make that happen overnight.
Yes, some of that workforce could be trained over time — maybe within a year or eighteen months — but that still requires significant investment in education, training programs, and infrastructure. The companies that rely on these technologies would need to commit resources to upskilling workers. Moreover, for more advanced engineering roles, you’re looking at timelines of several years.
Jacobsen: So we’re not seeing a real plan?
Tsukerman: Exactly. I’m not hearing a clear roadmap from policymakers. There’s talk about wanting to create domestic capacity and reduce reliance on Taiwan. Still, there are no specific goals, no public projections about how many jobs will be created, how many fabs will be operational, or what milestones we’re targeting in the next year or two.
All we’re hearing is vague language — “we want to reduce dependence,” “we want to bring manufacturing home” — but no execution strategy. And the irony is, the U.S. is nowhere near self-sufficiency when it comes to semiconductors. It still depends on joint production, foreign supply chains, and alliances, particularly with Taiwan, South Korea, the Netherlands, and Japan.
So imposing tariffs on one of your most critical and trusted suppliers, like Taiwan, could be seen as counterproductive — a kind of “cutting off your nose to spite your face” move.
Jacobsen: At the end of World War II, according to Chomsky’s reporting, the United States controlled about half the world’s productive capacity — essentially half of global GDP. I don’t know if he was using that precise metric, but it seems broadly accurate. Today, the U.S. likely accounts for about a quarter of global GDP. The European Union is nearing the end of another quarter.
China likely accounts for approximately another quarter of global GDP. So, compared to the post–World War II landscape, we’ve gone from a mostly unipolar world — where the U.S. held about half of global output — to a roughly tripolar world, in terms of annual wealth generation, with the U.S., China, and the European Union each making up substantial shares.
GDP isn’t a perfect measure. There are more sophisticated ways to assess influence or capability. But for the sake of argument, let’s treat it as a loose proxy for technological development, both annual progress and cumulative advancement. It’s like technology is paying dividends on earlier investments.
Looking at it that way, it seems clear that no country or bloc holds exclusive dominance over technological development anymore. So this current U.S.–China competition — what does it represent in the broader geopolitical context, especially over a medium-term time horizon, say 10 to 20 years?
Tsukerman: At its core, this isn’t just a trade war or a tariff skirmish — it’s a strategic competition over control of foundational technologies, particularly semiconductors, which are essential across both civilian industries and the defence sector. We’re talking about everything from AI-guided missile systems to next-gen computing platforms.
Parallel to that is the quantum race. China has publicly claimed to be leading in quantum computing, but so far, there has been no independently verifiable evidence supporting those claims. So I’m personally very skeptical. We’re still waiting to see whether those advances are fundamental or just propaganda.
This all plays into narratives on both sides. There’s the joke about “Make China Great Again,” and then the American metaphor about the U.S. economy being a vast ocean — that even a storm can’t sink. In many ways, these ideas mirror each other: China asserting its rise, the U.S. asserting its resilience.
Jacobsen: Right — and as you explained to me before, China’s rise has been heavily informed by decades of intellectual property that was either co-developed with the West or outright stolen.
Tsukerman: Exactly. That’s a massive part of the story. Over time, China has built up an enormous base of technical knowledge, some of it acquired through legal joint ventures, some via cyber espionage, and some through academic and commercial partnerships that lacked proper safeguards.
Now, what we’re seeing is China trying to leapfrog certain stages of technological development. For example, there are multiple trajectories in chip development. One primary path has focused on miniaturization — essentially, packing more transistors into smaller chips. That’s the principle behind Moore’s Law, which held for decades that computing power would double roughly every two years as chip components shrank.
Jacobsen: But isn’t there a debate now about Moore’s Law being obsolete? I’ve heard people talk about scaling laws instead.
Tsukerman: Yes — it’s an ongoing discussion. Some say Moore’s Law has reached its physical limits, especially at sub-5-nanometer nodes. But others argue there’s still room for innovation, particularly with advanced lithography and new materials. There’s also active R&D aimed at pushing Moore’s Law further.
That said, China is also exploring alternative models of computing. The West, for a long time, was so laser-focused on Moore’s Law that it didn’t fully explore other avenues — like neuromorphic computing, photonics, or architecture-level innovation. China is experimenting with these areas in parallel, in part because it has to — it can’t currently match the U.S. in leading-edge chip production. But it’s catching up, and in some cases, it’s innovating in less conventional ways.
That said, there’s more to this than just AI chips, and more to AI itself than just semiconductors. While global attention is fixed mainly on the U.S. and China due to defence applications, cutting-edge technology, and the green transition — where semiconductors are essential for EVs, smart grids, and more — several Middle Eastern countries are pursuing significantly different AI strategies.
In particular, nations like the United Arab Emirates have been focusing on AI integration across daily civilian life, from education and medical equipment to automation in public services, entertainment, and administrative processes. These are not necessarily the most militarily advanced applications, but they’re influential in shaping a future society. And in this area, the U.S. is falling behind.
China is arguably ahead of the U.S. as well, especially when it comes to early-stage AI education. They’re introducing basic AI literacy to children at a young age. Meanwhile, in the U.S., there’s still concern about screen time, digital overexposure, and other cultural hesitations. In my opinion, that battle is already over — and if American children aren’ttaught to use and build with technology early, they’ll fall far behind their counterparts in both China and parts of the Middle East.
In the UAE, for example, there’s a system-wide push to integrate AI into everyday infrastructure and social functions. It’snot about cutting-edge defence or quantum applications, but rather pragmatic, high-impact AI use in schools, hospitals, transport, public safety, and more. And it’s working. These applications aren’t threatening or dystopian — they’re just making everyday life more efficient and responsive.
The U.S. lags in this area for several reasons. First, it’s a much larger and more decentralized country, which makes implementation at scale far more complex. Second, there’s significant political division and debate over technology, ethics, surveillance, and job displacement — issues that slow down policy and adoption. The UAE, on the other hand, is an authoritarian state. It doesn’t face the same electoral or bureaucratic hurdles. It also benefits from higher levels of public trust in government, at least culturally, and from a younger population, which is generally more adaptable and receptive to change.
In the U.S., public discourse around AI is still largely framed by anxiety, fear of job loss, existential threats, and ethical dilemmas. Meanwhile, countries like the UAE are adopting the mindset of: “Let’s implement first, then refine later.” And so far, that approach is delivering results.
Jacobsen: So they’re outpacing the U.S. in non-defence, non-military AI use cases?
Tsukerman: Exactly. Not in advanced defence or green tech, but in civil integration of AI, they’re well ahead — and they have the resources and political flexibility to scale rapidly. I believe China will start to incorporate more of these approaches, too. However, China faces its structural issues: a population that’s not only far larger than the U.S. but also significantly older, which makes wide-scale tech adaptation more difficult in certain areas.
There’s a major demographic crisis in China. Despite the country’s vast industrial and technological capacity, it remains overall a lower-income country per capita compared to the U.S. or much of Europe. So, they face significant internal challenges — not just economic and demographic, but also institutional — that shape how they engage with technology and security policy.
When we talk about technological espionage, the conversation often focuses on China as the aggressor, conducting cyber theft, IP infringement, and infiltration of foreign research institutions. But it’s important to remember that there’s also a standard protocol of legitimate scientific collaboration, where experts across borders share knowledge through joint research. That coexistence of open cooperation and covert espionage creates strategic ambiguity that countries like China have used to their advantage.
Jacobsen: What about national security concerns inside China itself? I recall a story about Tesla cars being banned in certain sensitive zones — political or military — because the Chinese government feared the CIA could use the onboard camera systems for surveillance. It raises the question: Does China worry that the U.S. might use the same tactics against it, just as China has used them abroad?
Tsukerman: Yes, absolutely — China is deeply concerned about that possibility. And it’s not surprising, given how proficient they are at using those tactics themselves. Just to clarify a key difference: the U.S. intelligence community traditionally does not engage in industrial espionage to benefit purely private companies. That’s a line that is generally respected, although, of course, private U.S. companies have occasionally engaged in industrial espionage against each other, which leads to scandals from time to time.
Where U.S. intelligence does engage is in matters involving government-backed technologies, national security infrastructure, or military-adjacent innovations. The complication with China is that almost every major company has some link to the state, whether it’s the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), the PLA, or a state regulatory body. It’s hard to find a single major Chinese tech firm that operates with zero government affiliation. So, by U.S. intelligence logic, those entities would technically fall under the category of fair targets.
But how much espionage is carried out — and at what level — is a matter of strategy. I suspect the U.S. draws a distinction based on proximity to the Chinese government: the more directly controlled or funded the company is, the more it’s likely to be watched. But if it operates more like a genuinely private firm with minimal government ties, it’sprobably less likely to be actively targeted, at least not in a formal, sanctioned capacity.
And as for Tesla, I doubt U.S. intelligence would try to use Elon Musk’s vehicles for covert ops in China. Musk is already known to be extremely difficult to collaborate with — even on comparatively neutral matters, like providing satellite communications to Ukraine. So the idea of using Tesla as a surveillance conduit in China sounds far-fetched and impractical.
Jacobsen: Still, that doesn’t mean China isn’t taking those concerns seriously, right?
Tsukerman: Exactly. They’re taking it very seriously — in part because they understand these tactics well, having deployed them extensively themselves.
Take, for instance, the growing body of evidence and investigations in the U.S., U.K., and across Europe showing that certain Chinese-manufactured technologies — from cars to drones to consumer electronics — have arrived with built-in surveillance hardware or software. These aren’t conspiracy theories anymore. Even European governments — typically slower to act — have been alarmed by what’s been discovered.
China has now turned the tables. After the U.S. recently eased some restrictions on the export of certain chips to China, Chinese officials responded by suggesting that those chips might be compromised, potentially embedded with spying components. So now, they’re scrutinizing U.S. tech imports, blocklisting some, and implementing new cybersecurity reviews and data protection requirements. It’s a classic mirroring response — and it’s becoming a defining feature of this techno-security standoff.
Yeah, they’ve started inspecting newly arrived NVIDIA chips for embedded surveillance components. I have no idea what surveillance hardware would actually look like inside a chip, or how you’d even determine whether something was present that wasn’t supposed to be there. But this is what they’re doing — and it’s not just talk. It’s a real, documented effort.
Jacobsen: I mean, logically speaking, wouldn’t China just assume that if U.S. spies were somehow embedding surveillance components, they wouldn’t put them in a clearly marked or easily discoverable place? Wouldn’t they expect China to inspect obvious entry points and instead hide surveillance elsewhere, somewhere unexpected?
Tsukerman: 100%. That’s precisely why I find some of this a bit amusing. It’s almost like a game of espionage theatre — everyone suspects everyone, but neither side knows where to look or what exactly they’ll find. Still, China takes it seriously because it’s what they would do, so they assume others operate the same way.
Jacobsen: Final question: where are China and the U.S. not fighting when it comes to chips, semiconductors, and rare earths? Is there any room for mutual benefit or strategic restraint?
Tsukerman: Actually, yes — there are still areas of non-conflict in the tech space. Specifically, when it comes to less advanced chips — low to mid-grade semiconductors that are widely used in consumer electronics, appliances, and industrial systems — the U.S. has not imposed significant export restrictions. There are a couple of reasons for that:
- China already manufactures many of these chips on its own so that restrictions wouldn’t have much effect.
- These chips are not strategically sensitive, so the U.S. doesn’t view them as a national security threat.
Similarly, China hasn’t restricted exports of all rare earth elements, only certain strategic or scarce ones, like gallium, germanium, and potentially graphite. The U.S. still has access to other, less sensitive rare earths. So it’s not a total embargo — the conflict is targeted toward high-priority materials and high-performance chips.
That said, the overall trajectory of cooperation is negative. For instance, the U.S. State Department has floated the idea of revoking visas for certain Chinese students, particularly those studying in sensitive tech fields like AI, quantum computing, or advanced manufacturing. While I haven’t seen confirmed cases of mass student expulsions purely based on nationality, the policy direction is clear.
There have also been concerns that Chinese professors teaching or conducting research in the U.S. — especially in STEM areas — may come under increasing visa scrutiny. So far, I’ve only heard of student expulsions in connection with political protests (such as the Hamas demonstrations), not purely due to Chinese citizenship. But that may change.
Likewise, I haven’t seen mass removals of Chinese researchers from U.S. companies — yet. However, the process of obtaining research or work visas is becoming increasingly expensive, time-consuming, and restrictive, particularly in light of ongoing reviews of tech-sector access.
China, for its part, has been trying to recruit Western researchers — especially from universities that lost funding under the Trump administration — while simultaneously increasing its scrutiny of foreign nationals, particularly in sensitive R&D spaces. It’s a balancing act: they want Western talent but remain wary of Western influence.
Jacobsen: That’s the end. 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): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/08/18
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.
The Trump–Putin Alaska Summit on August 15, 2025, ended without concrete agreements, particularly on Ukraine. Despite three hours of talks, no ceasefire or deal was reached. Putin sought recognition of Russian control over Donetsk and Luhansk, while Trump emphasized Kyiv’s burden to negotiate. Optics—including red-carpet treatment, limousine rides, and military flyovers—overshadowed substance, leaving Russia with symbolic victories. Leaked documents revealed planning lapses and sensitive details. Analysts argue that Trump missed chances to hold Putin accountable for cyberattacks, abductions, and aggression. Instead, the summit bolstered Moscow’s narrative and raised concerns about U.S. strategy, with allies watching closely.
Interview conducted August 16, 2025.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Once more, we are here with attorney, geopolitical commentator, and analyst Irina Tsukerman. The Trump–Putin Alaska Summit concluded yesterday, on August 15, 2025—so today, August 16, is just over twenty-four hours later. At the summit, expectations were low, though some held out hope for breakthroughs. Now that we have the facts, what overall conclusions can we draw?
Irina Tsukerman: First, there was no agreement on Ukraine. Despite nearly three hours of talks focused on Ukraine, no ceasefire or concrete deal was reached. Putin proposed freezing frontlines or halting advances in return for territorial concessions such as control of Donetsk and Luhansk. Trump—noting the gravity of the conflict—later said, “Ukraine should make a deal… Russia is an immense power, and they’re not,” suggesting he saw the burden on Kyiv to negotiate.
Second, Trump indicated he prefers a comprehensive peace agreement over a temporary ceasefire, a noticeable shift from allied strategies. He also expressed hope of future meetings—possibly involving Zelenskyy, and perhaps even another summit with Putin.
Third, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is scheduled to meet with Trump in Washington on Monday to discuss peace efforts. While he is expected to reject any deal reached behind his back, he may still engage in broader peace talk concepts.
Fourth, the gathering included a red-carpet welcome, a ride in Trump’s presidential limousine (“The Beast”), and dramatic flyovers over Joint Base Elmendorf–Richardson. But the summit ended without meaningful press access or substantive agreements—Ukraine was notably absent from direct discussions.
Fifth, European leaders broadly supported Trump’s push to include Zelenskyy in negotiations while reaffirming Ukraine’s sovereignty and right to EU and NATO membership. Some, however, criticized Russia’s intentions and warned against rewarding aggression.
Finally, analysts argue that Putin came out of the summit emboldened. No new punitive measures were imposed, and perceptions of Russia’s diplomatic rehabilitation remain strong—even as no concessions were made.
Jacobsen: But the one thing we know is that, at least publicly, Trump appears to be siding with Putin for now. How long did the summit last? I recall some expectations of six to seven hours. Does the length of the meeting indicate anything about how it went? It was far less than that.
Tsukerman: It lasted no more than three hours. The press conference was about fifteen minutes long. If anything, this suggests that bilateral discussions on economic trade deals and broader U.S.–Russia relations may not have taken place or were cut short. It is unclear whether the entire time was devoted exclusively to Ukraine or if they briefly touched on other issues bilaterally but did not engage with business representatives. It is also uncertain whether those business representatives were present in case talks progressed further, or whether they planned to continue those discussions later.
All it indicates is that, as predicted by most observers, including the White House, the biggest expectations did not materialize. There was no resolution to the Ukraine issue. The meeting can best be exploratory rather than substantive. Many analysts had predicted this, and the White House had also suggested it might be the case. In that sense, all the additional plans were more like best-case scenarios rather than guaranteed events, and should not have been assumed by the Russian delegation.
What is clear is that Russia was celebrating the optics of the summit. Even though the perks did not materialize and no official agreement was announced, the very fact that Putin attended, shook hands with Trump, and even rode in Trump’s limousine—an unusual gesture—was viewed as a symbolic victory. Commentators noted the unusually long handshake compared to Trump’s meetings with other leaders. For Russia, these optics alone were a diplomatic gain.
Jacobsen: NPR reported, through journalist Chiara Eisner, in an article titled Government Papers Found in an Alaskan Hotel Reveal New Details of Trump–Putin Summit (published August 16, 2025, at 1:56 p.m. ET, updated thereafter). Eight pages of documents accidentally left behind by U.S. staff revealed potentially sensitive details of the meeting between President Trump and President Vladimir V. Putin in Anchorage.
The first page listed the sequence of events and the names of specific rooms on the base. It also showed Trump intended to present Putin with a ceremonial gift—an American bald eagle desk statue. Pages two through five included names and phone numbers of U.S. staff, along with thirteen U.S. and Russian state leaders. The documents also provided phonetic guides for pronouncing Russian officials’ names, including Putin.
Pages six and seven described the planned luncheon “in honour of His Excellency Vladimir Putin,” including seating charts. Trump was to be seated across from Putin, flanked by six officials: Marco Rubio, Pete Hegseth, Susie Wiles, Scott Bessent, Howard Lutnick, and Steve Witkoff. Putin was to be accompanied by Sergey Lavrov and Yuri Ushakov.
John Michael, a professor of law at UCLA specializing in national security, commented on the leaked documents, calling them “further evidence of the sloppiness and incompetence of the administration,” adding: “You don’t leave things in printers. It’s that simple.”
Jacobsen: Any thoughts on these higher-level details coming out a day later?
Tsukerman: First of all, whoever is responsible for this should not only be fired but also investigated, because who knows what else they may have left behind. Frankly, this is a gift to the Russians and everyone else on the planet—including the Chinese—who may be preparing for their potential meeting with Trump later on. It reveals how this administration thinks, how it does business, and how it handles the operational details of high-level summits with adversaries.
Now, anyone paying attention knows what to expect in the future: what gets cancelled if things go wrong, how decisions are made, and, perhaps most embarrassingly, that there are staff in the administration who leave sensitive documents behind. I am sure others will now be actively watching for such lapses. This is a major counterintelligence failure for many reasons—one of which, amusingly enough, includes the fact that nobody knows how to pronounce Putin’s name correctly. We can laugh, but it is deadly serious.
As to the documents themselves, the interesting question is whether the cancelled events were part of a finalized itinerary or merely a maximum program—a theoretical plan that might have unfolded if circumstances aligned. It is unclear whether the summit was as well-organized as Putin may have anticipated, or if Trump cancelled certain sections due to frustration. The uncertainty makes it difficult to assess precisely how the meetings proceeded.
One striking element is the composition of the delegations. Putin was flanked by just two of his top men, whereas Trump was accompanied by a much larger group—none of whom, notably, were Russia experts or Russian speakers. Putin also brought businesspeople and journalists, but not a large advisory team. That could indicate he was more focused on business deals than on high-level bilateral relations. Or it could have been a deliberate show of authority, underscoring that he alone is the ultimate decision-maker.
Whatever the explanation, the disparity between the delegations is striking. It highlights differences in communication style and the degree of preparation. One side clearly understood the other better than the other side understood it. Another curious detail is the obsequious tone in the notes toward Putin. I have not seen other officials treated with such deference. Modi, for example, has had amicable interactions with Trump, but not couched in such unusually deferential language. I also do not recall Trump presenting Modi with significant gifts—although Modi did bring gifts for Trump, as well as for Musk and his children.
Jacobsen: A short side note—are gifts common among high-level officials, presidents, prime ministers, and royalty? Do they usually exchange them at summits, especially bilateral ones?
Tsukerman: Gifts are indeed common. Whether they are exchanged in a particular bilateral meeting depends on the nature of the relationship and the significance of the summit. At high levels of diplomacy, symbolism matters, and gifts are part of that language.
I am surprised that this summit would have included any ceremonial gift exchange. Officially, the United States and Russia are adversaries, and this meeting was focused on resolving a significant conflict, not on building a friendly bilateral relationship. That said, symbolic gifts can serve as more than goodwill gestures. If the intent is to present a symbol of national power, then the message is not appeasement but assertion—a projection of strength.
A gift of that nature could be interpreted in multiple ways. Without knowing how the ceremony would have looked or what would have been said, it could be seen as Trump asserting U.S. power, declaring, “We are not afraid of you. This is who we are. Take it.” On the other hand, it might have been read as misjudging Putin’s position—interpreting him as more conciliatory toward Trump than he was.
In any case, the exchange did not take place. That suggests either that Trump’s team determined it was inappropriate in context or that something went wrong in the planning. What we know is that Putin’s core demand remains complete control of Donetsk and Luhansk—the Ukrainian territories occupied by Russia. “Oblast” in this context means “province” or “region.” Trump could not affirm this demand, since he has no authority to cede Ukrainian territory without President Zelenskyy’s consent. Zelenskyy, who is arriving Monday, will almost certainly be pressed on this point.
While Trump could not give Putin the affirmative answer he wanted, it is significant that after the summit, he began publicly pushing Putin’s plan. That alone shows Putin achieved something positive. Even without securing a deal, he got Trump to advance his agenda on the international stage—a win beyond the optics of the visit itself.
Jacobsen: One of the few serious commentators in the United States with an independent platform, Fareed Zakaria, described the Trump–Putin summit as “cringeworthy.” What are your thoughts on that?
Tsukerman: It is an apt description. Frankly, anything involving Putin in any role other than being expelled or held accountable is inherently cringeworthy. But the specific reasons here are clear. Putin should never have been invited to the United States—certainly not without Russia first making a concession elsewhere. He is, after all, a war criminal who should have been arrested, not welcomed with a red carpet and ceremonial honours.
Even if one interprets Trump’s move charitably—as an assertion that Alaska is American territory and not up for debate—the optics were unnecessary and counterproductive. If you are going to invite Putin under that framing, you extend the bare minimum of professional courtesy, nothing more. Rolling out the red carpet and staging dramatic gestures only undermines the intended message and puts the United States in a ridiculous position.
You certainly do not force the American military to kneel in ceremonial display, nor should military aircraft be reduced to purely honorary functions. Trump’s body language was also cringeworthy—his extended handshake, his applause for Putin, and his extremely warm expression toward someone who is not only an adversary but a killer, one actively instigating against the United States and relentlessly assaulting Ukraine. This is not a leader who should be welcomed with greater warmth than America’s closest allies.
This reception was arguably warmer than Trump has given to any other leader I can recall—perhaps except Modi, whom he later punished with a fifty-percent tariff increase, which in retrospect suggests such gestures may mean little.
Another critical failure was Trump’s lack of clear ultimatums. As host and as the leader of a country repeatedly targeted by Russian cyberattacks, he had every reason to withdraw from the summit altogether. At minimum, he should have used the meeting to hold Putin accountable—to demand not only an explanation but also a firm commitment that such attacks would cease, backed by the threat of severe repercussions. These could have included reciprocal cybermeasures, implied sanctions, and even the warning of arrest under international warrants should Putin travel abroad, with U.S. pressure applied to allied governments.
Instead, these opportunities were squandered. At the press conference, it was not Trump but a journalist who raised pointed questions—one ABC reporter asked Putin directly whether he would stop abducting Ukrainian civilians. The fact that Trump himself avoided such questions underscores the hollowness of the summit. He failed to demand the return of missing Ukrainian citizens, including the approximately twenty-two thousand identified children—and possibly hundreds of thousands more—illegally taken into Russia. By all available evidence, Trump never even raised the issue.
This suggests two things: first, that Trump is unwilling to challenge Putin, and second, that he remains, in some way, under Putin’s influence. In Trump’s zero-sum worldview, this places him firmly on the losing side. The contrast with earlier U.S.–Russia meetings is stark—when Reagan met Gorbachev, both he and his staff pressed the Soviets hard on human rights and accountability. Trump and his entourage, by comparison, asked nothing of the sort. That is not a weakness of America’s position, but of the character holding it.
What we witnessed was pomp over policy—terrible optics for the West, but powerful imagery for Russia. It was, by any objective measure, a win for the Kremlin narrative.
Jacobsen: Any final thoughts?
Tsukerman: Let us wait and see what China says, but I would wager Beijing is celebrating. They are almost certainly preparing with enthusiasm for any future bilateral meetings with Trump, now that they know what to expect.
Jacobsen: Excellent. Irina, thank you very much. I will see you in twenty minutes.
Tsukerman: Yes. See you then.
Jacobsen: Bye.
Tsukerman: 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): 2025/08/18
Bill London is a Professor Emeritus of Public Health at California State University, Los Angeles (Cal State LA). He has a background in biology and public health and is known for his work in consumer health, critical thinking in health science, and skepticism toward pseudoscientific claims. His academic and professional focus includes evaluating health claims, health education, and the importance of evidence-based medicine. London in total has six degrees (two in health education, one in educational psychology, one in public health, one in biological science and one in geography). He successfully completed all coursework but not the thesis toward a master of science in clinical research degree.
In a wide-ranging interview, London contrasts this long-standing scientific understanding with modern sociopolitical discourse, particularly around intersex conditions, gender identity, and medical terminology. He explores hypotheses for the evolution of sexual reproduction, including the Red Queen, Tangled Bank, and Vicar of Bray theories. London critiques recent shifts in medicine that conflate sex and gender, arguing for evidence-based definitions and practices. He emphasizes that while human variation is real, the binary nature of sex remains foundational in biological sciences. His book review appeared in the June/July issue of Free Inquiry in the special section on evolution
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with the Bill London, Professor Emeritus at Cal State LA. You recently wrote a review of The Evolution of Sex: Mating Strategies of Males and Females (2024) by Kevin Lee Teather, published by Oxford University Press. Let us begin with the fundamental definition presented in that book: What is meant by “sex” scientifically?
Prof. Bill London: The biological definition of sex, which has a long history of use and has only recently been challenged in specific contexts, is gamete-based. It applies broadly across species, including both animals and plants. The key term here is anisogamy—”aniso” meaning “unequal”—which refers to the existence of two distinct types of gametes.
One type is small and motile, produced in large quantities. The other is large and non-motile. In animals, these are sperm and egg (or ovum). In most plants, the small gamete is the pollen grain, which produces sperm cells, and the large gamete is the egg. This definition of sex—based on the type of gamete an organism produces—applies across all sexually reproducing eukaryotes.
Jacobsen: So we define sex based on gametes, but determining someone’s sex is a separate issue.
London: Defining sex is about the biological role in reproduction—what kind of gamete an organism produces. Determining sex is about how that biological role manifests—genetically, anatomically, developmentally, behaviorally—and that can vary within and between species. However, the core definition based on gamete type stays the same across species.
Jacobsen: And this definition goes way back, right? How far are we talking—when did sexual reproduction originate?
London: It goes way back. Sexual reproduction is estimated to have originated over one billion years ago, likely around 1.2 to 2 billion years ago, in early eukaryotic lineages. Still, yes, it is more than a billion years of evolutionary history.
Jacobsen: So over that billion-year history, what are the key evolutionary milestones?
London: That is a tricky question to answer in a simple list, but I can mention a few primary concepts. First, the transition from asexual to sexual reproduction was a critical turning point. Early on, organisms reproduced by simple division or budding. However, with sex came recombination, which increases genetic diversity and may have provided advantages in adapting to changing environments or escaping parasitic threats.
There are several hypotheses for why sex evolved despite its costs, like the Red Queen hypothesis, which suggests that ongoing adaptation is needed to stay ahead of parasites, and Muller’s Ratchet, which proposes that sexual reproduction helps eliminate harmful mutations. However, the evolutionary reasons for sex are still debated.
Jacobsen: So it is controversial?
London: Yes, in the sense that there are multiple competing hypotheses, and the evidence is not conclusive in favour of just one. Some explanations are more relevant in specific contexts than others. It is a rich area of evolutionary biology.
Jacobsen: There is also that part of the book discussing why there are only two types of gametes. What is going on there?
London: That is a great question. In the early evolution of sex, it is thought that gametes were originally the same size—a condition called isogamy. However, over time, many lineages evolved anisogamy, with two distinctly sized gametes. This divergence likely arose from evolutionary trade-offs between producing many small gametes to maximize fertilization chances versus investing in fewer, larger gametes with more resources to support early development.
The reason we only see two types of gametes in nearly all sexually reproducing organisms is due to the instability of systems with more than two types—it is evolutionarily stable to have one “mobile and numerous” and one “large and resource-rich” gamete type. That is why we do not see three or more gamete types persisting in nature.
Jacobsen: So sexual reproduction is not free—it has real costs?
London: There is a classic idea in evolutionary biology that “there is no such thing as a free lunch.” Producing males, for example, is costly in many species because males often do not directly contribute to offspring production beyond fertilization. That is known as the “two-fold cost of sex”. If every individual were capable of producing offspring alone, population growth would double compared to systems where only females produce offspring.
Still, the benefits of sex—like genetic variation seem to outweigh the costs, at least under many conditions.
Jacobsen: The meiotic division that produces gametes has a cost. Mating has costs. So why does sexual reproduction happen at all?
London: Right, there are definite drawbacks to sexual reproduction compared to asexual reproduction, but there are also various hypotheses that try to explain its evolutionary advantage. I did not cover those in detail in the review because they can get pretty technical.
Jacobsen: Fair enough. I am not sure how much general interest there is in that anyway.
London: True—but sexual reproduction does increase genetic variability, and that is central to most of the leading hypotheses. The book discussed three main ones: the Tangled Bank hypothesis, the Red Queen hypothesis, and the Vicar of Bray hypothesis.
Jacobsen: Would you be open to going over those?
London: Sure, though I am not immersed in this field—I would just be reading from the book. However, I am open to it if it is helpful.
Jacobsen: I will let you in on a big secret—I am not deeply ensconced in this research either.
London: Fair enough! So, here is the Vicar of Bray hypothesis, also sometimes called the Fisher–Muller model, though that is for more technical reasons. It is based on the idea that one significant advantage of sexual reproduction is increased genetic variability. The hypothesis suggests that offspring in a sexual population will be genetically diverse and, as a result, better able to respond to environmental changes.
Natural selection would then favour the individuals with gene variants—or alleles—that best suit the environment. In theory, this gives sexually reproducing populations a long-term advantage. The issue is, however, that local environments do not typically change much from one generation to the next. If the parents thrive in that environment, then genetically identical offspring—like in asexual reproduction—should do just as well. So, the hypothesis faces a problem: it works better as a long-term strategy, but natural selection operates in the short term, generation by generation. Evolution does not plan. Also, this hypothesis leans on group selection, which most evolutionary biologists reject. Selection acts on individuals, not groups.
Another hypothesis was proposed in 1974 by Michael Ghiselin. It is called the Tangled Bank hypothesis because it references Darwin’s imagery from On the Origin of Species, where he describes a “tangled bank” full of diverse organisms interacting. In such a structurally diverse environment, genetically varied offspring might be better suited to exploit different ecological niches. If siblings differ genetically, they may be less likely to compete directly for the same resources, which could benefit the species overall in a crowded or complex habitat.
However, again, there are problems. Suppose this was the main reason for the evolution of sex. In that case, we would expect to find sexual reproduction most common in species that live in densely populated, highly competitive environments. However, that pattern does not always hold up in nature. So, the hypothesis has its limitations.
That leaves the Red Queen hypothesis. This one has the most empirical support. It is also the title of a book by Matt Ridley—The Red Queen. The name comes from Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Carroll, where Alice meets the Red Queen, who tells her, “It takes all the running you can do to stay in the same place.” It is a metaphor for the evolutionary arms race, especially between hosts and parasites.
The idea is that organisms must constantly evolve to maintain their current level of fitness in a changing environment, especially as parasites and pathogens also evolve. Sexual reproduction, by continually shuffling genes and creating variation, helps organisms stay ahead of their biological enemies. This hypothesis explains why sex persists despite its costs—it enables faster adaptation.
“The Queen suddenly grabs Alice and begins running very rapidly, but they never get anywhere. Perplexed, Alice wonders why they are not passing anything—and why they remain in the same place despite all the running.”
“Now you see,” says the Red Queen, “it takes all the running you can do to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that.”
This phrase came to be used to describe the coevolutionary process between organisms that interact with one another. Initially, it was applied to relationships like predator–prey or parasite–host dynamics. Suppose an adaptation evolves in one organism to improve its survival, say, a toxin in prey that makes it less palatable to predators. In that case, there is selective pressure on the interacting organism to evolve a counter-adaptation. So, it is essentially an evolutionary arms race.
Jacobsen: You mentioned that much of the focus in this area has been on pathogens, and that links to your background. Your expertise is in public health, right?
London: Correct. I have a biology degree, but I do not do evolutionary biology research. My work has been more in health science and public health broadly.
Jacobsen: To come back to something you said at the beginning of the interview—you mentioned the longstanding biological definition of sex, centered on gametes. Could you expand on why that definition is considered so fruitful?
London: It’s a productive definition because it leads us to ask meaningful questions about differences between the sexes—about male and female reproductive strategies. The subtitle of the book I reviewed is Strategies of Males and Females. These strategies vary by species, but within a given species, they tend to be distinct.
Mating strategies differ. Parental investment differs. Sometimes, even body morphology differs. That leads into the important concept of sexual selection, which Darwin highlighted—for example, in the case of the peacock. The elaborate feathers seem less useful for survival.
London: The peacock’s ornamental plumage doesn’t help it avoid predators. It might be a liability in that sense. But it attracts peahens. That’s the core of sexual selection—traits that increase reproductive success, even if they come at a cost to survival.
Jacobsen: So what’s the competing definition of sex that’s been put forward recently? How does it differ from the traditional, gamete-based definition?
London: There isn’t a replacement definition, per se. What’s happening is that people are drawing attention to biological exceptions or variations, often in the context of humans. But biological sex, as defined by gamete type, is still the framework that works across all sexually reproducing species.
The controversy is anthropocentric, mainly. That is, it’s focused on humans and human social concerns. In biological research on animals and plants, the gamete-based definition remains central and useful. Just because there’s variability or ambiguity in some individual cases doesn’t mean the definition breaks down. It just means biology—as always—is complex.
They’re referring to males and females, but often, the discussion is motivated by a desire to make everyone feel included. People point out that some individuals have conditions that are atypical for either male or female. These conditions are rare, but they’re often used to challenge the idea of sex as a binary.
The argument is that describing sex as binary excludes some people. But I would suggest that this framing doesn’t deal with biological reality. Every person—every human being—has one biological mother and one biological father. That’s an inescapable fact of human reproduction. It took a sperm and an egg. It’s that simple.
Now, one alternative idea that’s been promoted is a continuum model of sex. The claim is that sex isn’t binary because a small number of individuals don’t fit neatly into the male or female categories. But suppose you examine these so-called intersex conditions closely. What matters—biologically—is the type of gonads an individual has. There are only two types: gonads that produce sperm (testes) and gonads that produce eggs (ovaries).
That’s the biological basis for defining sex: gamete type. Some people use the term differences rather than disorders, but medically, these are called disorders of sexual development (DSDs). These are cases where a person’s physical traits may appear ambiguous or not typical of their chromosomal or gonadal sex. However, the key determinant is still the type of gonad present.
Some rare individuals may have both types of gonadal tissue, but even then, one is usually underdeveloped or non-functional. So while it seems ambiguous, it isn’t so on a biological level.
Take the condition called Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (CAIS), for example—something neurologist Steven Novella often refers to. In this condition, the body doesn’t respond to androgens like testosterone, which are responsible for developing male characteristics. So genetically male individuals (with XY chromosomes) who have this condition develop a body that appears female in every external way—but they still have testes.
They won’t have a uterus or ovaries. To anyone encountering them, they would appear female. Still, biologically, their bodies followed the male developmental pathway until it failed to respond to testosterone.
So what do we do with that? Some people propose a spectrum, with male and female at either end and intersex individuals somewhere in between. But if you use that model, you’re effectively suggesting that some males are “less male” and some females are “less female” than others. That’s not necessarily inclusive.
The more straightforward and more scientifically grounded way to view it is that sex evolved as a binary system—two sexes—for sexual reproduction. The exceptions, while honest and worthy of understanding, don’t negate the underlying biological structure.
The fact that people don’t always engage in sex for reproductive purposes—that it brings pleasure, intimacy, and other benefits—is undoubtedly true. But from an evolutionary standpoint, sex evolved because it leads to reproduction. The pleasurable aspect exists because it encourages behaviors that result in reproduction.
Of course, humanists and secular thinkers would say people are free to have sex for reasons beyond reproduction—and that’s fine. No one has to subscribe to a reproductive-only framework. But when we’re talking about definitions in biology, particularly across species, the reproductive role is central.
I’m not even sure how some people are defining sex these days. They seem to treat it as a vague or holistic concept, saying it can be defined in many ways. But the book The Evolution of Sex spends much time arguing why we shouldn’t use definitions based on subjective traits or piecemeal anatomical features.
Some arguments focus on individuals with mixed anatomical features—someone with certain aspects of male anatomy and others of female anatomy. But those arguments tend to be anecdotal and very human centered. They don’t offer a simple, consistent, or biologically functional definition that can apply across species.
The gamete-based definition—classifying organisms by whether they produce sperm or eggs—is objective and applicable across the biological world. When we look closely at intersex conditions through that lens, we usually find it’s not ambiguous. In most cases, the gonads indicate whether someone is male or female biologically. But people often shift the discussion to include other traits.
Jacobsen: So what’s the purpose of the newer language—terms like “spectrum,” or “differences in sexual development”?
London: From a scientific standpoint, these newer terms did not emerge from [new] research. They’re more about appreciating human variation, which is fine. I would argue that we can understand human differences—without discarding a robust biological framework—by recognizing that, just like any other body system, the reproductive system can develop atypically.
Some people prefer the term differences in sexual development rather than disorders, because it’s seen as less stigmatizing. It’s similar to using “differently abled” instead of “disabled.” It may sound kinder, but whether it changes perception or helps people is another matter.
Sometimes, this softer language minimizes the seriousness or medical relevance of certain conditions. Whether we call them disorders of sexual development, differences, or anomalies, the biological facts don’t change. It’s a matter of terminology, but the underlying science remains the same.
Another tactic people use when arguing that sex is a spectrum is to shift focus to other traits—like height, strength, or voice pitch—and show that there’s overlap between males and females. For instance, males tend to be taller, but many females are taller than many males.
That kind of argument confuses dimorphism—statistical differences in traits—with binary classification, which is about reproductive role. Just because there’s trait overlap doesn’t mean sex itself isn’t binary. So I don’t even follow the logic of saying, “Some women are taller than some men; therefore, sex isn’t binary.” It conflates unrelated concepts.
Jacobsen: I see. But that kind of thinking reflects an alternative framework. Within a professional setting—and based on your reading and experience—would you say the gamete-based definition of sex is still the one overwhelmingly used in academic and research contexts?
London: That’s a tricky question to answer directly, because it depends on the field. In biology, yes—the gamete-based definition remains standard. When biologists study animals, plants, fungi, or any other sexually reproducing species, they define sex based on whether an organism produces small gametes (sperm) or large gametes (eggs). That’s the operational definition across most of the biological sciences.
But in medicine, there’s been more of a shift. Many medical institutions and professional organizations are moving away from strict binary language. They often use terms like “sex assigned at birth” and avoid emphasizing gametes or reproductive anatomy. There’s been a growing trend toward incorporating gender identity considerations into how sex is discussed, even in clinical contexts.
Jacobsen: That seems to reflect some conflation between different concepts—sex, gender, sexuality.
London: People are increasingly conflating sex with gender, with sexual orientation, and even with sexual behaviour. These are distinct concepts, but they’re often blurred in public discourse.
If someone wants to talk about a gender spectrum, that’s a separate issue. Gender is a subjective, socially influenced identity. People may identify as nonbinary, and society can respect those identities as expressions of personal experience. There’s nothing wrong with recognizing and honouring that.
But many efforts to support transgender individuals go further—they reframe sex itself as a spectrum. And that’s where I think the science is being misrepresented. Most transgender people don’t have any biological anomalies of sexual development. Their transition—whether social, hormonal, or surgical—is from male to female or female to male. They aren’t medically transitioning to some undefined “in-between” sex. So, redefining sex as a spectrum to support gender identity feels more ideological than scientific.
Jacobsen: So you’re saying the biological definition remains central in scientific research, even if it’s being revised or avoided in some clinical or policy settings?
London: Yes. In medical policy, there’s growing acceptance of nonbinary thinking about sex, primarily to accommodate gender-diverse individuals. But in biology, sex is defined—by gametes. That doesn’t mean sex determination is the same across species. In some species, it’s based on chromosomes. In others, it’s triggered by environmental cues like temperature. But the reason we can even ask which chromosomes or conditions determine sex is because we already know what sex is: it’s about which gametes an individual produces, or is structured to produce.
Jacobsen: So, sex determination systems vary, but the definition of sex stays consistent?
London: Whether sex is determined by XY chromosomes, ZW chromosomes, haplodiploidy, or temperature, the underlying concept of sex is tied to reproductive roles. You examine the type of gametes an organism produces. That’s the constant.
In contrast, medicine has drifted somewhat from that clarity. There’s increasing deference to the social and political dimensions of gender identity. I’ll be writing more about this, but as someone focused on consumer health, I’m deeply concerned about evidence-based care, especially in areas like gender-affirming treatment.
Much of what’s promoted to patients and families today is shaped more by ideological commitment than by strong scientific evidence. Suppose you look at systematic reviews on gender-affirming care for youth. In that case, the conclusions are often more cautious than what’s portrayed in public advocacy. That discrepancy matters, especially when making decisions that have lifelong implications.
The evidence just isn’t there, but there’s a strong commitment to specific positions by some activist physicians, who’ve influenced the official statements of various medical groups.
Jacobsen: Appreciate your time. It’s been a pleasure.
London: Likewise. And thank you for the vital work you’re doing. Take care.
Jacobsen: You’re welcome. 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): 2025/08/17
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, national security attorney Irina Tsukerman analyzes Ukraine’s growing unrest over government moves to place anti-corruption agencies under executive control, warning of public disillusionment, Russian exploitation, and Western missteps such as delayed military aid. She also examines escalating Thai-Cambodian border tensions—triggered by landmine incidents, cultural disputes, and nationalist politics—set against a backdrop of historical grievances and China’s strategic influence. Tsukerman explains how labour exploitation, contested heritage, and geopolitical maneuvering intertwine to destabilize the region. Her insights link domestic politics, identity conflicts, and great-power competition to broader patterns of fragility and missed opportunities for stability.
Interview conducted August 8.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: The most dramatic development I have seen in the past week is the backlash to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s explicit claims about maintaining military control over Gaza. This is quite a statement. I received an email this morning from a significant figure—someone connected to American institutions—saying we could interview this. My question is: what are your thoughts on this, and what will likely be the fallout by the time this is published?
Irina Tsukerman: The most controversial part of Netanyahu’s remarks is not about taking control of Gaza, because, in practical terms, about 75% of Gaza is already under Israeli military control. The key issue is that many people do not realize how small the territory is, so “taking over Gaza” sounds more dramatic than it is.
The larger strategic problem is that Israel’s military has not been consistently holding the areas it clears. This is why Hamas has been able to reconstitute itself repeatedly. They have not implemented a sustained counterinsurgency strategy—something General Petraeus and many others have advised, which would involve clearing, holding, and only withdrawing after Hamas is fully dismantled.
Another critical misstep was not targeting Rafah earlier, where much of Hamas’s leadership was initially entrenched. By delaying operations there, Hamas had time to disperse its leadership and fighters. Instead of cutting off the head of the snake early, Israel went after lower-level operatives first, allowing a large number of armed fighters to keep circulating throughout Gaza via its extensive tunnel network.
These tunnels are not a single contiguous system that can be seized in one operation; they branch off, intersect with civilian infrastructure, and allow fighters to surface unpredictably in other locations. Without controlling all of Gaza, including the tunnels, Israel cannot eliminate Hamas’s military leadership.
Netanyahu later clarified that he does not intend to annex Gaza. He said the occupation would be temporary, aimed at dismantling Hamas’s military infrastructure, rescuing hostages if possible, and then transferring control to another authority. The unanswered question is: who would that be?
The Palestinian Authority is ill-equipped for the task—it is struggling to maintain control in the West Bank, where Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad are actively challenging its Authority. Israel has conducted multiple raids there in recent months. Still, the PA’s popularity is declining even among West Bank Palestinians, much less in Gaza.
In Gaza itself, there is also clan-based violence that is anti-Hamas but not pro-Palestinian Authority. These factions often resemble criminal gangs or smuggling networks and had significant influence before Israel’s 2005 withdrawal and Hamas’s 2007 takeover. Any transition to alternative leadership is therefore highly problematic.
The Arab states have little interest in directly administering or securing Gaza. They want the issue resolved without involving themselves or Israel, and they have shown no willingness to pressure Qatar to stop funding Hamas. The United States is in the best position to leverage Qatar, but it has not done so.
Given these dynamics, the most likely scenario after any Israeli withdrawal is political chaos, with multiple factions competing for power. This instability could spill over into the West Bank. Turkey and other regional actors may attempt to gain influence, even though Israel is determined to keep both Iran and Turkey out of the equation. Without a concrete alternative plan for governance, Israel may not be able to prevent outside involvement.
Nobody wants to open the borders until Gaza is demilitarized, and that will not happen quickly, regardless of the political outcome. The controversy is legitimate, but it is focused on the wrong aspects. Everyone understands that without a prolonged operation, Hamas cannot be entirely removed from Gaza. If that is the goal—and right now, there is broad consensus, even the Arab League has issued statements to that effect—there are still significant complications.
The Arab League’s problem is twofold: first, that Israel is the one carrying it out; second, disagreements about Israel’s methods. Some of the controversy is fueled by Hamas propaganda, some stems from Israeli disorganization, and some is simply the result of a lack of cooperation channels, which creates logistical problems.
The bottom line is that no one wants to participate in the solution. Still, none of the available solutions are satisfactory to any of the stakeholders, and for good reason. Gaza has been unstable for a long time and has deteriorated further over the past two decades. Former U.S. President Trump did not put forward a serious, workable plan for the U.S. role in resolving the conflict. He offered neither financing for reconstruction nor a plan for demilitarization, nor was he willing to commit American troops. He also failed to secure long-term Arab cooperation with Israel. As a result, there will be no clean transition to a less destructive status quo. Without significant regional changes and outside engagement, we are facing a prolonged asymmetrical conflict.
Jacobsen: Ahead of his meeting with the United States about the war in Ukraine, Russian President Vladimir Putin today spoke with leaders of China, India, and three former Soviet states. No venue, date, or agenda for the meeting has been announced. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has said he discussed peace and Russia with South Africa’s President Ramaphosa. Chinese President Xi Jinping told Putin that China welcomes renewed U.S.-Russia contacts as Russia seeks to end the war in Ukraine.
Tsukerman: If Russia truly sought to end the war in Ukraine, it could do so easily by withdrawing, stopping the abductions, and releasing civilians, including children, whom they have taken.
There have been over 700,000 Ukrainian nationals abducted by Russia, and only about 22,000 children have been identified so far. That means there are hundreds of thousands of people whose identities and whereabouts are unknown. Some have been transferred to Russia, some sent to camps for indoctrination and training against Ukraine, some placed in prisons or labour camps, and some trafficked internationally for sex exploitation. Many of these individuals are now effectively untraceable.
If Russia wanted to end the war, it could withdraw and release the civilians they have taken hostage. I do not see that happening. Instead, they are seeking political cover to gain more military and logistical support from China. They are likely to get it, since China is already supporting them in various ways and has stated it cannot allow Russia to lose the war.
As for discussions with India, China, and the post-Soviet states, India and China are historically rivals and should not be aligned, but U.S. tariffs under Trump have had the unintended effect of bringing them closer together. This, in turn, has drawn India back toward Russia after it had been moving away. Putin is scheduled to visit India shortly, and Prime Minister Modi is expected to visit China sometime this year.
There was a call between Prime Minister Modi and President Putin in which they discussed their bilateral relationship and Ukraine, exchanging warm words. This came right after former President Trump announced an additional 25% tariff on Indian goods—on top of the existing 25%—allegedly over India’s purchases of Russian oil. India was singled out for these secondary tariffs, which are not sanctions but instead economic measures designed to punish countries buying Russian crude.
Nothing comparable was imposed on China, which is purchasing significantly more discounted Russian oil than India, as well as engaging in other trade activities with Russia. Nor has the United States sanctioned Russian aluminum or other metals, despite importing large quantities of them.
While India and China are unlikely to become close allies, Trump’s economic measures against India are driving these two rival countries into limited economic alignment. Modi is under domestic pressure to take a firm stance against the United States, even though India does not have the kind of financial leverage that China does. This imbalance could explain why Trump is targeting India rather than China—the U.S. economy remains heavily dependent on Chinese capital and supply chains. In contrast, India’s still-developing economy is more vulnerable to tariffs. India’s overreliance on the U.S. market and its lack of diversified trade relationships make these tariffs a significant shock.
Central Asia is also emerging as a key geopolitical arena. Russia and China are competing for influence there, and India is trying to build economic ties with the region. Pakistan and Afghanistan currently serve as primary gateways into Central Asia, but new routes are developing. For instance, today an agreement was concluded between Armenia, Azerbaijan, and the United States granting the U.S. significant economic and development presence in the Zangezur Corridor—a route connecting Europe to Central Asia that bypasses both Iran and Russia.
Central Asia is becoming an active collective player even as internal power struggles persist. Iran has not given up its influence in states such as Turkmenistan, and Turkey is using cultural and linguistic ties to expand its own economic and political footprint. The result is a complex and shifting geopolitical reality. While Russia is falling behind economically, Trump’s tariff policies are alienating U.S. partners, giving Moscow opportunities to attract attention and limited support despite its weakened position.
Jacobsen: One clarification: there was a recent media report claiming that India had paused potential plans to purchase U.S. arms in response to these tensions. However, the Indian Ministry of Defence has denied this, calling the story false and confirming that negotiations are ongoing. It remains unclear whether Defence Minister Singh’s visit to the U.S. has been cancelled. Still, even if he does not attend, lower-ranking officials are expected to continue the talks.
On a separate note, the International Criminal Court has issued an arrest warrant for Saif Suleiman Snedal, a Libyan national believed to be part of Group 50 or a subgroup of the Al-Saiqa Brigade. The ICC cites reasonable grounds to believe he is responsible for war crimes, including murder, torture, and outrages upon personal dignity, allegedly committed in Benghazi and surrounding areas. Any thoughts?
Tsukerman: Unfortunately, the destabilization caused by the Libyan civil war created fertile ground for a range of armed actors. Some of these groups were connected to the main factions in the conflict. In contrast, others were independent militias or transnational terrorist organizations—such as al-Qaeda and ISIS—that seized the opportunity to establish a presence in Libya.
We are only now beginning to determine how many atrocities were committed by these actors. Unfortunately, many of them were able to travel freely for years, building networks, gaining influence, and advancing their agendas—not only in Libya but across North Africa, throughout the African continent, and in the Middle East. Libya’s fractured landscape compounds this: the country effectively has two rival governments. Most of the oil—especially in the east—is controlled by Benghazi. Still, the international community officially recognizes Tripoli, which has little actual influence in eastern Libya.
We also see significant Islamist influence emanating from Tripoli, which appears to offer a degree of protection to former fighters from the civil war, many of whom are now freelancing or engaging in outright terrorist activity abroad. It is encouraging that the international community is finally starting to take these Libya-based terrorists seriously, but sanctioning individuals is not enough. There must be resources devoted to tracking them down, prosecuting them, dismantling their networks, and cutting off their financial and logistical support. This also requires applying pressure on Tripoli and neighbouring states that have facilitated the movement and financing of these actors. The message should be clear: no ideological extremism will be tolerated.
The Biden administration’s efforts in Libya have been on reducing Russian influence in Benghazi. However, the reason Russia is present there in the first place is that Benghazi lacks a unified military force. It relies on militias and is not strong enough to confront Tripoli, which has military backing from Turkey. Benghazi also feels threatened by local militias, Islamist fighters, and mercenaries who have entered Libya over time. Today, Turkey is consolidating its foothold in the region.
This is a complex geopolitical situation, and removing a single terrorist will not fundamentally alter the strategic realities. Suppose we are to go beyond playing “whack-a-mole” with “extremists. In that case, there needs to be a framework for addressing Libya’s security challenges. That means depriving extremist groups of the “oxygen” they need to operate, forging political consensus, and building a more stable national government.
Jacobsen: The U.S. Mission warns of threats to Jewish and Israeli communities in the United Arab Emirates. According to a report, it has information indicating active threats, stating: “Terrorist organizations are operating with increased intensity these days in efforts to harm Israel.” The statement was vague, but the source is credible. Your thoughts?
Tsukerman: This is not surprising. After Israel targeted various Iranian proxies and Iran itself, an uptick in retaliatory activity was expected. Iran has openly stated it aims to target Israelis worldwide, not just in the Middle East. Israel recently evacuated its diplomats from the UAE after reports—unconfirmed but credible—of Iran preparing a new series of airstrikes that could affect the region.
It would also not be the first time that Jewish communities and Israeli citizens were targeted in the UAE. Not long ago, an Israeli-Moldovan dual citizen who was a rabbi was abducted and murdered there. While his Israeli citizenship was downplayed publicly, he had been tracked by Iranian intelligence, which reportedly hired foreign nationals in the UAE to carry out the killing.
Iran has previously attempted to abduct other nationals in the UAE, including opposition leaders, and in some cases threatened them directly. The UAE’s ability comes partly from its geographic proximity to Iran, as well as extensive trade ties. Many Iranian companies operate in Dubai and Abu Dhabi, and there are even intermarriages between some members of the Emirati royal family and Iranian nationals.
There is a significant level of Iranian influence in the UAE, making it fertile ground for interference. These new threats reflect an uptick in Iranian asymmetrical activity in place of any effective military response to Israel. This is not unprecedented—historically, Iran has targeted Jewish communities worldwide, including in Germany, and has used Hezbollah to carry out operations. They have attempted to assassinate Israeli businesspeople and stage abductions in Turkey.
The question is whether the UAE is equipped—politically, in terms of law enforcement capacity, and in intelligence resources—to handle this threat, and whether it has the political will to curb Iran’s targeting of Israeli visitors, Jewish residents, and businesspeople with part-time residency in the UAE. At some point, the UAE will have to decide what side it wants to be on. The United States has not been a remarkably consistent partner in countering regional threats. Still, Iran has become so politically toxic that countries maintaining close trade ties with it could face reputational and economic consequences.
Jacobsen: This ties back to our earlier discussions on antisemitism. The Aryan Freedom Network is reportedly “riding” high in the Trump era. The Neo-Nazi group, led by a Texas couple who are both children of Ku Klux Klan members, has gained prominence. According to Heidi Beirich, cofounder of the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism, extremist groups have become so normalized that ‘Proud Boys do not seem that scary anymore.’ This suggests an increase in antisemitism and related extremist ideologies, with the threshold for joining such groups decreasing while the extremity of their rhetoric and objectives is increasing. Your thoughts?
Tsukerman: There are several reasons for this. One is what I call “coalition theory”: different radical factions are joining forces and mainstreaming each other in a post-ideological environment, as the traditional party structure breaks down. Conspiracy theories, public disillusionment with political corruption, and polarizing media narratives fuel that breakdown.
Trump himself has used rhetoric that many interpret as dog whistles to such groups, and he has done little to counter their influence actively. His administration did not make a concerted effort to denounce these movements, and in some cases, individuals in both lower and higher-ranking positions engaged with extremist platforms. One example is Kash Patel, who appeared eight times on a podcast that later broadcast content calling for a “final solution” against Jews in the United States and sought alliances with Islamist groups despite ideological contradictions.
Prominent Trump-aligned media figures have also contributed. Tucker Carlson has given platforms to Holocaust deniers; Candace Owens has promoted conspiracy theories; and figures like Daryl Cooper, Elon Musk, and Steve Bannon have, at times, engaged in behaviour or rhetoric that normalizes extremist ideas. Musk and Bannon, for instance, have been accused of mainstreaming a Nazi-like salute, and Musk’s X has become a permissive space for far-right rhetoric. Moreover, there was the recent Hitler episode on Grok.
Jacobsen: Yes—another Hitler episode. This has happened periodically, even since Grok was updated. Some speculate that Musk may have deliberately adjusted it to produce such content. At the same time, that timing appears plausible based on earlier patterns, it remains speculation.
Tsukerman: The fact that several well-known public figures with substantial influence over discourse are intervening on behalf of extremists and promoting them has created a silent acceptance—almost a whitewashing—of their presence. This emboldens such individuals, making them feel freer and more accepted, which is why they are re-emerging from the margins.
Many of these groups had been marginalized and depopularized in the past. Still, some are now gaining momentum partly as a backlash to cancel culture and what is perceived as extreme left censorship. That said, it is not purely reactionary—some of this resurgence has been actively cultivated. Russian funding of far-right groups in the United States is a documented reality. Russians have been linked to financially supporting neo-Nazi organizations, amplifying their messaging, and promoting specific figures.
Figures like Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens have been tied to Russian propaganda outlets, and in some cases, to other extremist networks, such as Qatari entities using Al Jazeera and Islamist channels to promote similar rhetoric. This “coalition theory” dynamic is increasingly visible. We have seen individuals like Kanye West promote antisemitic rhetoric to audiences within minority communities, and Nick Fuentes—once a fringe figure—has gained massive social media traction. This cross-platform boosting increases visibility, creates resonance, and facilitates ideological cross-pollination among disparate extremist factions.
The proliferation of conspiracy theories has become a unifying force, bringing together individuals from different ideological origins. These mechanisms are helping to accelerate the rise of the far right.
Jacobsen: Shifting to Asia, there was a recent simulated Chinese blockade of Taiwan, which revealed Singapore as a potential lifeline. Officially, Singapore has tried to remain neutral. Still, some within its government are increasingly concerned about Chinese interference in their political system.
Tsukerman: Being a small state, Singapore is wary of taking an overtly pro-Taiwan stance, especially as U.S. policy under Trump has sent mixed signals: cancelling the Taiwanese president’s visit to Washington and scrapping scheduled defence talks. Such moves do not reassure smaller Asian nations.
China has seized on this uncertainty, expanding its political interference and military maneuvering. Taiwan’s party—already facing domestic dissatisfaction due to political mismanagement—has been overly reliant on the United States for both energy and security policy. This leaves it vulnerable, particularly when Washington’s actions appear inconsistent. China benefits from this public disillusionment, exploiting frustrations with the most vocal anti-China political forces.
We see similar patterns elsewhere in Asia. In South Korea, a former president adopted a tough-on-China stance but overreached politically. This opened the door for a more dovish leadership seeking rapprochement with Beijing. Japan and South Korea have even concluded a major bilateral economic cooperation agreement with China for the first time in decades.
Singapore is caught in the middle of these shifting dynamics, with deep economic ties to China that are not easily severed. Without active U.S. engagement—and especially in the wake of new U.S. tariffs on Asia-Pacific products—there is even less incentive for countries in the region to reduce economic dependence on China.
Jacobsen: On August 7, former President Donald Trump announced that he would nominate Council of Economic Advisers Chairman Stephen Moore as a Federal Reserve governor. Any thoughts?
Tsukerman: Some investor commentary has been skeptical. Drew Brenner, head of international fixed income securities at NatAlliance Securities in New York, stated: “Our view is he is controversial and will not pass. He will change the Fed.”
Jacobsen: First, he has no experience, no street smarts, no business background—always politics, unquote. Any thoughts?
Tsukerman: Look, has that ever stopped our politics? Think back to Congress. They rubber-stamped political “geniuses” like Tulsi Gabbard and defence hawks like Pete Hegseth.
Jacobsen: Dan Bongino—FBI.
Tsukerman: Yeah, Dan Bongino, assorted others. There is even the head of a terrorist group who was formerly a gardener. That is the extent of his counterargument—a 22-year-old saying, “I was a gardener so that I could run.” That is his political experience.
There have been other people with zero political experience—or even basic knowledge of policy issues—appointed to various positions. That will certainly not stop either Trump or Congress from confirming him.
It is obvious politics. Trump has made no secret of wanting to displace Federal Reserve leadership with people who are political loyalists and will do what he says: lower interest rates, fight inflation, and pursue economic growth, economic stability be damned. That is what he is working toward.
I am sure that the governor’s abrupt departure was not an accident. She was probably pressured to do so. Jerome Powell’Powell’s term ends in May 2026, which means Trump will be able to appoint whoever he wants to that position and essentially staff the Fed with people who answer to him, making it another puppet structure despite its supposed constitutional independence.
While Trump cannot legally remove Powell, he can surround him with loyalists and make him ineffective. He can also pressure and force people out, allegedly of their own accord, to implement his policies. That is precisely what he is doing systematically. This is what abuse of power looks like.
The fact that there is no widespread pushback—that people approve everything Trump does without question, with a poor grasp of economics, U.S. history, and the law—is another big problem. When you have an ignorant voting base, you cannot have constructive criticism of government policy. People tend to gravitate toward what sounds emotionally satisfying, rather than evaluating policies on their merits.
We have been reduced to playing for our favourite team, not examining the policies themselves.
Jacobsen: Good time for one more?
Tsukerman: Yes, and this one stands out—Uganda.
A Ugandan court denied bail to veteran opposition leader Kizza Besigye, who has been in jail for nine months on treason charges. This has raised concern among government critics, including opposition leader Bobi Wine, about a crackdown ahead of Uganda’s election. President Yoweri Museveni, 80, is seeking reelection.
He is not even the oldest African leader running for another term—Robert Mugabe was in his 90s when he ran again. Throughout Africa, it is common for elderly leaders to stay in power. Many of them, like Museveni, came to power during the Cold War, often with Soviet backing, and have maintained one-party systems that keep them in office for decades.
In Chad, there is a younger leader. Still, he has already been influenced by foreign powers like the UAE and Russia. In most cases, elections are neither free nor fair, and opposition candidates are excluded, prosecuted, or accused of crimes. Many opposition groups themselves are corrupt or ineffective, adding to the political dysfunction.
Uganda is one of the worst offenders in this regard. It is also facing a wave of jihadist violence, separatism, and border tensions—some of which are relatively new. The U.S. has largely abandoned holding these governments accountable. Under Trump, the focus has shifted to securing rare earth minerals in exchange for security and economic deals, with little interest in countering ideological extremism, fighting corruption, or supporting human rights reforms.
The previous administration focused more on climate change and countering Russian and Chinese influence. Still, even then, there was little emphasis on promoting good governance. As a result, Africa is filled with leaders who have been in power too long, many of whom are more interested in enriching their families than serving their citizens.
In more developed African nations like Kenya and Ghana, entrepreneurship is growing, and there is some political pressure for results. In Uganda, this is not the case. The treason charges against opposition leaders are a standard tool to suppress dissent. This is unlikely to change, and Trump will not pressure Uganda to make any changes.
The European Union has also avoided holding African governments accountable, focusing instead on two priorities: containing jihadism (with limited success) and preventing waves of migration from Africa.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Irina.
Tsukerman: 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): 2025/08/16
Dr. Džina (Gina) Donauskaitė, Head of the Lithuanian Journalism Centre and lecturer at Vilnius University, highlights Lithuania’s strong media freedom but low public trust in journalism. Trust has declined since 2003–2004 due to media oligarchs, political interference, and transparency issues. Lithuania, often mislabeled as “post-Soviet,” has evolved significantly since joining the EU and NATO. Challenges include unratified protections for women, lack of LGBT rights, and high inequality. Younger generations are more open and egalitarian, especially in media habits and social expectations. Donauskaitė emphasizes the link between freedom and responsibility, stressing that rebuilding trust requires commitment to ethical journalism and civic accountability.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What is your current position?
Dr. Džina (Gina) Donauskaitė: I am the Head of the Lithuanian Journalism Centre, which is a non-governmental organization. We specialize in informal journalism education and applied media research. I also teach journalism students at Vilnius University.
Jacobsen: What do you see as a gap or need in journalism in Lithuania?
Donauskaitė: I believe the most significant issue we currently face is low public trust in the media. According to international indicators—such as the World Press Freedom Index by Reporters Without Borders—Lithuania performs quite well in terms of press freedom. In 2023, for example, Lithuania was ranked 7th out of 180 countries, and in 2024, it was ranked 14th. So, structurally and legally, we have one of the freest media environments in the world. However, despite this, trust in the media among the public is relatively low. Survey data typically shows trust ranging between 25% and 32%, depending on the methodology and year. That is quite low for a country with such a free media system. Rebuilding public trust is essential. Before Lithuania joined the European Union in 2004, trust in the media was significantly higher. In the early 2000s, it was estimated at around 65%, according to local surveys. But after EU accession—and especially following several high-profile political and media scandals—there was a noticeable and gradual decline in public confidence. Even though we’ve improved professional standards in journalism over the past two decades, the perception of media credibility has not kept pace. That gap needs attention.
Jacobsen: Lithuania also joined NATO in 2004. Did that contribute to the decline in trust?
Donauskaitė: I do not think Lithuania’s accession to NATO or the EU directly caused the decline in media trust. Other internal developments were more influential. One major factor was how media ownership evolved after the 1990s. There was a consolidation of media power among a few influential owners—often referred to as “media oligarchs”—who maintained close ties with political elites. These relationships were not always transparent and sometimes involved unethical practices—a major political event in 2004 further complicated public trust. President Rolandas Paksas was impeached and removed from office due to findings by Lithuania’s Constitutional Court and national security services. They concluded that he had violated the Constitution by granting Lithuanian citizenship to a Russian businessman linked to questionable networks and by allowing undue influence over presidential decisions. This crisis played out publicly and divisively in the media. During that time, different media outlets took sharply opposing stances—some supporting Paksas, others calling for his removal. This created confusion among the public.
People began to question whether journalists were pursuing the truth or pushing political agendas. That was a turning point, and many realized that behind-the-scenes dynamics were shaping the news they consumed. Since then, things have changed. No single media outlet dominates the landscape as it did in the early 2000s. The rise of digital and independent platforms has diversified the media environment. Still, trust remains fragile, and it takes continuous effort to rebuild and sustain it.
There is a lot of media freedom at the moment. The old influential monopolies are no longer as dominant. You can now access quite high-quality information. But still, the issue of trust remains. It goes back to 2003–2004, when people began to realize that some shady processes were occurring within the media landscape. That is when public trust began to decline. During the independence movement, trust in the media was very high. The press stood on the side of independence, on the side of the people. After January 13th, 1991, when Soviet troops attempted to seize the Lithuanian Parliament and successfully took over the national radio and television station, the official broadcast was taken over. The Soviets brought in their journalists. In response, the professional Lithuanian journalists resigned en masse and began establishing alternative channels to continue reporting. These journalists remained pro-independence and played a key role in the information resistance. At that time, the media earned enormous public trust by being at the forefront of the struggle for independence. But around 2003–2004, people started noticing that not everything in the media was as transparent as it should be, and trust began to erode. That said, when it comes to EU and NATO membership, most Lithuanians are supportive. These developments are widely seen as positive political choices for the country.
As for religion, it is not religion itself, but there have been some grave and recent scandals involving sexual exploitation of minors. These cases involved priests, not necessarily prominent ones, but individuals who were protected by more senior figures within the Church. In some instances, justice was never served because the events took place a long time ago, making it difficult to gather sufficient evidence. Some victims came forward only in adulthood. So in some instances, there was no legal justice. But in others, priests were tried and received prison sentences. Some were also tried and sentenced by the Church’s internal tribunal.
Jacobsen: When people from outside the country think about Lithuania—though perhaps it is not a country they often think about—what do they typically get wrong or right? What is the general image others have, and how accurate is it?
Donauskaitė: That depends, because knowledge varies from country to country and person to person. But I would say that Lithuania is too often referred to as a “post-Soviet” country. So much has changed that the label no longer applies. We are quite different now. Even when it comes to our media system, we are far ahead of what is typical in post-Soviet contexts. Compared to Ukraine, Moldova, Armenia, or Georgia, Lithuania—and also Estonia and Latvia—are in a very different place. The media systems in all three Baltic states are genuinely free.
In contrast, the countries I just mentioned still face serious media freedom issues. So, comparing Lithuania to other post-Soviet countries is often inaccurate. The Baltic states have come a long way already.
Due to Lithuania’s accession to NATO and the European Union, we had to restructure many internal systems. These changes made us significantly different from other post-Soviet countries. Yet, in international media, one of the first things usually mentioned is that Lithuania is a post-Soviet or former Soviet Union country. That characterization can be quite irritating to Lithuanians. It is something we would like to see change. Lithuania has been a European Union member state 2004 for 20 years now. It is a very different country today. Also, sometimes foreigners who visit larger cities like Vilnius get a good impression. Vilnius is a relatively large and economically vibrant city. The standard of living appears quite high. But that is not the case across all regions of Lithuania. It is a small country, but we still experience significant economic and social inequalities.
Jacobsen: As a journalist, what do you find is easier here, and what is harder?
Donauskaitė: I would say it is easier to get sources. That is something typical of small countries. You can reach people quite easily. In larger countries, there are layers and layers of bureaucracy and gatekeeping to get through before landing an interview. Here in Lithuania, it is relatively easy to arrange an interview with someone. Of course, some politicians or sources may avoid speaking, but generally, the information flow is accessible. That is an advantage for journalists working in Lithuania. Also, one can build a journalism career quickly here. No significant structural barriers are keeping younger journalists from entering the field. If they are motivated, they can succeed. Journalism remains an energy-intensive and demanding profession, but for those who are passionate, building a career in Lithuania is very doable.
Jacobsen: Human rights standards are generally good here. But where do significant rights abuses still occur?
Donauskaitė: One major issue is the Istanbul Convention. Lithuania still has not ratified it into national law. That needs to happen. The Convention addresses violence against women, and ratifying it would be a significant step forward. Another ongoing concern is the lack of legal recognition for same-sex partnerships. While LGBT visibility has grown, especially in larger cities, many people still struggle to be open about their identities and experiences. This remains a serious issue. Although events like Pride parades are held in city centers—very colourful, very visible—day-to-day life remains complicated for many LGBT individuals. Just recently, a court ruled that same-sex couples should theoretically be allowed to register partnerships, stating that preventing them from doing so goes against the Constitution. It was a landmark decision by one of our courts. In theory, registration could now happen without new legislation from parliament. No one has tested this yet, so we will see what happens. Perhaps the courts will help establish this new legal practice. Butoverall, it is an ongoing struggle for equal rights in Lithuania.
Like in many other places, in theory, we have all the human rights protections in place, but implementation can be very different. I would say many countries face similar issues, often related to conservative attitudes within the population. For example, abortion rights are quite accessible in Lithuania, but they are not grounded in legislation. The right to abortion—up to 12 weeks—was established through ministerial regulations, not by parliamentary law. That means a minister could theoretically revoke it at any time. A conservative minister could come in and cancel the directive. Despite this, the general public still considers abortion a right, and any attempt to remove that access would likely receive public backlash. We even had a conservative health minister who was personally anti-abortion, and though he expressed that sentiment publicly, he did not revoke the regulation—he left it in place. So there was anti-abortion rhetoric, but in practice, access remained unchanged. That said, when women are interviewed, their experiences vary. Some doctors refuse to perform abortions, and women may need to seek out someone willing. So, in practice, the system does not always guarantee human rights, even when formally in place.
Jacobsen: So even though it comes up rhetorically, is the 12 weeks generally accepted, or is there broader debate about it?
Donauskaitė: I think the 12-week limit is generally accepted, with some exceptions allowed for medical reasons.
Jacobsen: What about economic parity? You mentioned inequality earlier—how does Lithuania fare?
Donauskaitė: Lithuania has one of the highest income inequality rates in the European Union. Only Romania and Bulgaria typically rank higher. So yes, inequality here is quite significant.
Jacobsen: What about gender-based economic disparities?
Donauskaitė: I am not a specialist in gender economics, but unequal pay still exists across some professions. Even when women and men are doing the same job, disparities remain. I do not think any country has achieved full pay equality yet, but here, the wage gap persists. Even in high-paying sectors like STEM and IT—where more women are now employed—female employees tend to earn more than women on average, but still not as much as their male counterparts.
Jacobsen: What about generational differences? How do older people—say, men and women over 65—compare with younger generations aged 18 to 35 in terms of adapting to new discourses, the influence of international culture via the internet, and shifting demographics? Are the differences stark?
Donauskaitė: Yes, there are many differences, especially regarding media use. The older generation still primarily consumes television and linear media, while the younger generation is immersed in globalized social media. They live in different informational ecosystems. It is hard to find many commonalities between the two groups. In terms of media consumption, older people tend to rely heavily on local news sources, but local media in Lithuania are often under-resourced and do not invest much in modernizing or reaching younger audiences.
Meanwhile, the younger generation rarely engages with traditional or mainstream media. They get most of their news and content from platforms like Instagram and TikTok. TikTok and Instagram are currently the most popular platforms in Lithuania. So, from a media research perspective, these generations inhabit entirely separate informational spheres. As for other cultural dimensions, the media divide is evident.
Jacobsen: How about trends in marriage, partnership, and related areas? Does that come up in the news much? I know certain billionaires in the United States are obsessed with these topics—declines in marriage, increases in divorce, more acceptance of single-parent households, and more equal partnerships. Is that part of the media conversation in Lithuania?
Donauskaitė: Very rarely. If someone researches the topic, it might get some media coverage. But it is not considered hard news. It is more of a feature topic—something journalists might cover if they are specifically interested or if new research is released. Overall, the media does not focus on it much. Culturally speaking, Lithuania is still a relatively socially conservative country. So, these shifts are not widely discussed, either in the media or in broader public discourse.
Jacobsen: Among younger generations, are women driving these changes more, or are men? In terms of how they see themselves and relate to society.
Donauskaitė: I would say both are changing significantly. Younger generations tend to relate to each other more equally. You can see that mutual respect is emerging. I notice this with my students. They are eager for feedback, keen to communicate. They want connection, which is excellent, but also challenging for me as a teacher. I might have 50 students in one class, another 50 in a second class, and more in a third. All of them want feedback. They want to talk about their work, and they want to talk about themselves. That desire for communication, connection, mentorship—this is a normal and very healthy development. It was not like this in my generation. We communicated much less with our teachers or mentors. But now, they seek out that relationship, and I think it is a sign of positive societal change. You are building a society where people feel comfortable reaching out for help, for advice, for guidance. I also notice that students form deeper connections with one another. At least among the journalism students I teach, I see exciting social transformations taking place.
Jacobsen: I still have not figured this out—and I have been here a few days, visited museums, and walked around—but what is quintessentially Lithuanian?
Donauskaitė: How do I answer that question? I do not know.
Jacobsen: I do not mean the soup. I do not mean the beet soup. What is the character of Lithuania?
Donauskaitė: A few years ago, Lithuania tried to brand itself as a “brave country”—one that embraces new ideas, change, and innovation. I would say Lithuanians are indeed very mobile. They might not be brave in every sense, but many Lithuanians have travelled abroad. Many have also settled in other countries.
Jacobsen: I know some have been to Reykjavik.
Donauskaitė: Yes. But not only Reykjavik. Norway is one of the top destinations for Lithuanians. So are the UK and Ireland. Of course, much of this is economic migration, but the numbers are significant. I would say that mobility—travelling, relocating, and exploring other countries—is very much a Lithuanian trait now. And some of those who left are starting to come back.
Jacobsen: They have enriched the country a lot, probably.
Donauskaitė: Yes. Lithuania was behind the Iron Curtain for so long that people had minimal freedom to travel, mainly only within the Soviet Union. When the borders opened and the opportunity finally came, many people took it. Some even left illegally, before Lithuania joined the EU and gained complete freedom of movement. They would go abroad and work without legal status. That impulse to move, to explore, is still strong. Sometimes people leave without being fully prepared—they may not speak the local language or have much education, but they still go. It is part of a broader desire to see and experience something new.
Jacobsen: What about the conscription that was reintroduced in 2014?
Donauskaitė: Yes, conscription was reintroduced, but it is still not applied universally. They select a limited number of individuals each year. Some people genuinely want to participate. I would say that after the full-scale invasion of Ukraine began, many volunteered out of their own will. They also receive remuneration for their service. Those who volunteer receive higher compensation than those who are conscripted. The conscription policy remains relatively liberal. Women are not included in mandatory conscription—it is only compulsory for men. Women can volunteer to serve, but it is not required. I wouldn’t say the numbers are enormous, but the service lasts only six months, so it’s not an extended commitment. Since 2022, many people—including young people and professionals—have joined the Riflemen’s Union, which is a paramilitary civilian organization. Members receive training in tactics, firearms use, and basic military strategy. I am not part of it, but many people I know, including journalists, have joined. In the current context of war, I would say Lithuanian society has become more militarized. Many who have joined believe that war is inevitable—that it is just a matter of time. The relative calm we are experiencing now feels to many like the silence before the storm. People are fearful, and many are actively preparing for what they believe could happen.
Jacobsen: Last question. Do you have any favourite quotes?
Donauskaitė: Oh my God, no. I do not carry quotes in my head. I know too many! I have friends who are always quoting poetry.
Jacobsen: Or a bit of wisdom, then?
Donauskaitė: Bits of wisdom… no, nothing comes to mind quickly. I cannot think of something on the spot. Do you have something for yourself?
Jacobsen: There was a famous comedian, Lenny Bruce, in the United States. He inspired George Carlin, Richard Pryor, and others. There was also a magazine writer named Paul Krasner. He published The Realist for fifty years. He has passed away now. He was actually on the advisory board of a publication I used to run. He was the first person I ever allowed to interview me. This was during Trump’s first administration. It was supposed to be two questions, and it ended up being 2,000 words. When I first interviewed him, his last piece of advice was: Don’t take yourself as seriously as your causes. That’ll get you pretty far.
Donauskaitė: Yes. That’s very true. I do not know who initially said that—it might not be very original—but I recently wrote a piece about trust in media and media freedom. I explored ways to rebuild public confidence in the media. Ultimately, freedom is tied to responsibility. If you want to be free, you must take responsibility. We need to embrace the responsibility that comes with freedom.
Jacobsen: Freedom is like a coin—on one side are rights, and on the other side is responsibility.
Donauskaitė: Right now, we are fortunate to enjoy freedom in the media. No one knows what will happen in the future, but at this moment, we can speak our minds freely. In Soviet times, people could be imprisoned for expressing their opinions. You could lose your job for speaking freely. Even your relatives—your children—could face consequences in school or elsewhere if you said the wrong thing. That is no longer the case. But still, freedom of speech comes with responsibility. If you do not take that responsibility seriously, trust erodes. However, if you do take it seriously, I believe trust can be rebuilt. If you’re genuinely committed to freedom, then restoring trust is possible. That is something I came to believe after writing that article. It is not an original idea—just the result of everything I read and everyone I spoke with while working on it. It has been on my mind lately.
Jacobsen: Thank you very much for your time today, your expertise, Gina.
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): 2025/08/03
I’ve always liked Glenn Gould upon hearing about him, hearing him, and listening to him speak. Not everything done by him was necessarily great, or even good, but was of the highest quality for his authentic expression. His admirable qualities were total dedication to a single pursuit without pretense. He mentioned making most psychosymmetric sense of Orlando Gibbons in auditory aesthetic choices at the time of Gibbons if Gibbons. I agree on both counts. A great composer and a great performer of the composer. In this sense, Glenn Gould was less about Bach and more about Gibbons. There are two of them and a three-part sensibility of temporal symmetry, humane sentiment, though in an asymmetric spatial relationship. We were each born in the wrong time and place, radical conservatives or traditional revolutionaries.
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): 2025/08/01
White versus black isn’t light versus dark.
It’s spectral plurality versus singular nothing.
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): 2025/08/01
That wasn’t obvious, dear;
I cannot read a mind.
Although other things unsaid were more obvious,
back to back,
and changed clothes.
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): 2025/07/31
Does everything have to be grand, imbued with grandeur?
Gosh, people can be tiresome.
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): 2025/07/31
I have found something.
When given independence, some part of us revolts.
We yearn for our dependencies.
The past is always now, too.
Also, we don’t see the world.
Therefore, we don’t see ourselves, either.
We’re driving the truck in Wadi Rum,
looking backwards,
admiring the beauty of the landscape,
mistaking the objects for us,
opaque fog on a windy night,
sitting in the middle of the desert,
admiring the skyline.
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): 2025/07/29
So, you get home.
You’re tired.
You need time.
You feel hungry.
The aches,
the pains,
the oof,
ah, ouch.
Okay then, bargain with the clock.
Any more time?
It may not even be real,
but, for us, it’s real enough.
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): 2025/07/28
What is the thin line between hypervigilance from trauma and ADHD?
I keep encountering people who have one or the other, rarely both.
However, I sense that those who exhibit the most severe symptoms of either condition often display both symptomologies.
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): 2025/07/29
Do you know why States make so many decisions on sentimentalism, thus cloudyheaded emotionalism?
Because they’re mostly run by males, not the clearer-headed sex.
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): 2025/07/30
If your expectation of love is fireworks, then you may be among them: an adolescent.
One cannot be argued out of this misconception,
as it’s an emotional, developmental delay.
It’s akin to mistaking financial gain with life success,
or mere attendance in a pew with a spiritual life.
Let it be,
let them 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): 2025/07/29
I’ve met people better or worse at, well,
masking themselves,
who they are to the neighbour,
to the boss,
to the coworkers,
to their kids,
to their spouse,
and siblings,
and parents,
and the public, if they have any,
but, and you see this line,
especially to themselves.
In some sense,
the yearn to belong,
and its urge to conform,
is both comfort and curse,
as we each die alone in any case.
Where is the mirror in all of this, a pond on a clear moonlit night?
We do not even see ourselves,
as we do not even have a compass for the light after a while.
Reflections on echoes, thus diminished.
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): 2025/07/28
Restoration takes time.
Shall we assume malice of forethought when simple administrative backlog is a more straightforward answer?
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): 2025/07/28
Siltriller,
Sir Silt,
until trill,
thriller.
Skyunbound,
sittletrim drowntrodden,
Und Achtung alairt to the momentous,
Domes done,
trill drilled and,
the bounded skysight sits,
askance but chanced.
Who knew, you never knew the sites?
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): 2025/07/26
Even the hottest nights in the desert,
can be cold;
Sundown…
…and my internal lights are wide awake.
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): 2025/07/26
Part of the character of the Europeans,
is an intrepid sentimentalism.
Enough to go to the ‘New World,’
while pining for the Old World.
Enough to stretch the growth of Yggdrasil,
while emotionally linked to its roots.
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): 2025/08/15
Dr. Robyn Koslowitz, clinical psychologist and author of Post-Traumatic Parenting, discusses how unresolved trauma shapes parenting styles, leading parents to react from trauma adaptations like perfectionism or dissociation rather than authentic self-regulation. She emphasizes conscious parenting’s unique power to help trauma survivors recognize and heal their internal triggers, ultimately breaking generational trauma cycles. The book is for everyone, by focusing on fostering self-awareness, emotional regulation, and authentic connections. Dr. Koslowitz introduces practical strategies grounded in neuroscience and psychology, stressing the importance of acceptance, integration, and meaning-making (AIM) in trauma recovery. Highlighting the role of community, cultural sensitivity, and supportive networks, she advocates for recognizing parenting as a communal rather than solitary endeavour, empowering parents to nurture emotionally resilient and connected families.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are speaking with Dr. Robyn Koslowitz, Ph.D. She received her doctorate in Clinical Child Psychology from New York University in 2009. Licensed as a school psychologist since 2002 and as a clinical psychologist since 2017, she serves as Clinical Director at the Center for Psychological Growth of New Jersey, which she founded. Dr. Koslowitz is the author of Post-Traumatic Parenting: Break the Cycle and Become the Parent You Always Wanted to Be, a guide combining neuroscience, psychology, and practical tools to support trauma survivors in raising emotionally healthy children. She frequently contributes to NPR and Parents magazine, appears on outlets such as Fox, CNN, and NewsNation, and hosts the Post-Traumatic Parenting YouTube channel. She blogs for Psychology Today too.
Drawing on over two decades of clinical experience, including work in schools and private practice, as well as her journey as a parent, Dr. Koslowitz empowers individuals to break free from generational trauma and build joyful, connected families. Her foundational model, Responsive and Responsible Parenting (R² Parenting), helps parents heal and grow while raising their children. She is a sought-after speaker and educator, featured in media and at the annual Post‑Traumatic Parenting Summit, where she leads workshops that equip parents with strategies for regulating emotions and setting boundaries amid triggers. First question: How can trauma that is never explicitly discussed still shape the way a parent raises a child?
Dr. Robyn Koslowitz: Here’s what I’ve found clinically and personally: as parents, we wake up with good intentions—“I’m not going to yell today.” “Even with my teenager’s eye-rolling, I’ll stay calm.” But then something triggers us, and we find ourselves yelling, snapping, dissociating, or giving in when we’d intended to hold firm boundaries. What if that reaction isn’t you but your trauma? Often, early experiences taught you patterns like yelling when stressed or people-pleasing under pressure.
These patterns stem from trauma—not only from dramatic events like accidents or violence but from any experience that your developing brain couldn’t fully process—something that left you asking, Who am I? What’s happening? That istrauma. Much of it is hidden because, as children, we accept what happens. A four-year-old doesn’t know when things are “messed up,” and even at fifteen, you might take specific experiences without labelling them as wrong. With time, you realize That shouldn’t have happened. So you might say, “I’m not traumatized—I wasn’t in a bombing.” But perhaps your mother was a functional alcoholic who frequently forgot to pick you up from school, leaving you stranded for an hour. That’s a traumatic experience as well.
If you’ve been rehearsing that for thirty years, it’s going to take a minute to unpair those two things. It’s going to take a second to change that. People say, “Oh, yay, your brain’s neuroplastic.” That’s true, but that’s also why therapy takes a long time. That’s why we have to change things actively—because it’s hard to unwire something once we’ve rehearsed it so many times.
Jacobsen: What makes conscious parenting uniquely powerful for those with unresolved trauma?
Koslowitz: So first of all, what happens when we’re traumatized—in my book, I use a metaphor that resonates with people: the idea of a “trauma app.” It’s the moment your brain experiences something overwhelming. I use the example of a time when maybe I’m not sure, Dad puts his fist through the wall. Your body goes into alarm mode, but your mom seems perfectly calm. Everyone acts like it’s just Tuesday morning. So, your brain creates a trauma app. It says, “This is scary. I need to solve this.”
It’s your survival instinct on steroids. Your brain creates an algorithm: “If Dad’s mad, I need to soothe the waters.” Or, “If someone seems threatening, I need to make jokes.” Or “If someone is angry, I need to lash out.” And you rehearse that algorithm over and over and over. Sometimes, you do not even realize it is a trauma adaptation. You think it is just who you are. You say, “I’m a control freak. I’m just really good at reading the room. I speak my mind. I’m an angry person—that’s just me.” You think it’s personality, but it’s an adaptation. It’s the trauma response so deeply practiced that it becomes identity.
Jacobsen: So you internalize it as your personality?
Koslowitz: For myself, one of my significant trauma adaptations—as a child raised in a home where my father was chronically very ill—was dissociation. My trauma story is that he died in my arms. I performed CPR on him when I was sixteen. I could go into that whole story, but one thing I learned how to do well was dissociate.
I could be in an emergency room—because my father had constant cardiac episodes—and I was the only child at home. My three older brothers had already moved out. So my mother would take me along. I could sit in a hospital waiting room and do my homework like I was sitting at the kitchen table. I could completely block out the world.
Yes, disconnect. I could dissociate so deeply that during my dissertation, I would sometimes work through the entire night. I thought of it as adaptive dissociation—a kind of superpower. I could concentrate anywhere. I could easily enter a state of flow. For me, the challenge is not getting into a state of flow. It’s getting out of it.
I always thought that was a good thing—until I had kids.
One day, my son, who was about ten years old at the time, looked at me and said, “Mommy, where do you go when you go away behind your eyes? Sometimes you’re talking to me, but you’re not here.”
Jacobsen: That’s powerful.
Koslowitz: He was ten years old—and now he’s a college student. So it’s like, wow, how much older he is. But I remember he started to cry. It was painful for him. And I thought, Wow, I do this dissociation thing. I could be giving a speech in front of a large audience—people will comment on my quality of presence—and I’m completely dissociated. But my kid saw it. It bothered him. And I realized I needed to take action.
I remember thinking at the time, It’s as if my son said to me, “Mommy, you’re five feet tall. You need to be six feet tall so you can reach the upper cabinet. So figure that out.” I was stuck. What should I do—stop dissociating and feel my feelings?
But then, if I did that, my other trauma adaptation—perfectionism—would kick in. I’d yell. I wouldn’t be this “perfect mom.” That wouldn’t work, either. So I didn’t know what to do with that.
Years later, it became a complete healing journey. Children are usually the map, the mirror, and the motivator of our trauma. A child will hit that trigger. Parents often judge themselves—“Why does my kid trigger me? What’s wrong with me?” I always say: It’s not that your kid triggers you. It’s that your kid reveals your triggers—and you’ve got to be willing to heal them.
If my son hadn’t said that to me, I would have stayed dissociated. I would have thought, This is great—I never feel stressed out in the moment. But that’s also why, at the time, I was morbidly obese. I was unhealthy in many ways. I didn’t feel stressed, so I thought everything was fine. But it wasn’t. If my kid hadn’t said, “This isn’t good,” I don’t know that I ever would have changed it.
Often, our kids are the first people we care about enough to make significant changes for. If a boss had said that to me, I would’ve responded, “Look, this is how I work. Take it or leave it.” I was a valuable enough employee that many would take me as I was. A romantic partner could have broken through. But for me, it was my son.
Jacobsen: What happened when you were sixteen?
Koslowitz: My father had a bad heart condition for most of my life. He developed it when I was around five years old. One of his first cardiac episodes happened when he was tossing me up into the air during play. For years, I carried the feeling that it was somehow my fault—that I had roughhoused with him and caused it. It took me years to unpack that in therapy.
He kept having severe cardiac events. He was a smoker. He lived a high-stress lifestyle—he was a securities trader. That kind of stress was constant. Throughout my childhood, these cardiac events were a regular part of my life.
When I was sixteen, I happened to be a lifeguard. I was sleeping. I heard my mother screaming in the middle of the night. I ran to their bedroom. My father was holding his nitroglycerin in one hand and the phone in the other. He was trying to call 911. I immediately started CPR. Unfortunately, I was not successful.
So, for years, I carried a deep sense that I needed to be perfect because I believed my mistakes could harm or even kill people. I must have done CPR wrong. I did not know at the time that female upper body strength—especially at sixteen—is significantly limited. I’m much more fit now. Back then, I was an aerobics instructor. I worked out a lot, but I did not have the muscle mass I have today. It was the ’90s—everything was cardio, and girls weren’t lifting weights. I was strong for my age, but still, performing CPR on a large man while on a mattress? If you’re not breaking ribs, you’re probably not doing effective CPR.
However, I wasn’t aware of that at the time. I didn’t know that until a good friend of mine, who is a trauma nurse, pointed it out to me recently. She said, “There was no way the CPR was going to work. There was no way you could have moved him to the floor. No way, at your age, with your strength, you could have successfully performed CPR on him.”
I had never even known that. So, for years, I carried this shame and guilt and perfectionism. I believed I had failed. Everyone was telling me I was a hero—I tried to do CPR, and the paramedics had to pull me off his body to defibrillate him—but I knew I had failed. I believed I had killed my father. That became a core belief.
Coincidentally, shortly after that, a schoolmate of mine—not a classmate, but someone in my school—had a fatal aneurysm in class. She was a sophomore, and I was a junior. She suddenly collapsed. Everyone was screaming. I think it was lunch or something because I don’t recall teachers being in the room right away.
I ran in and realized instantly—because I had seen death—I realized there was no one home behind her eyes. She didn’t need CPR because her heart was still beating, but she wasn’t breathing. I started to provide rescue breaths and began screaming at the teachers. All the teachers were standing around, asking things like, “What period is this?” or “Did she eat lunch?” or “These girls are always dieting.” And I’m like, “Call the paramedics! Get 911!”
I shoved a teacher. And I was a well-behaved, straight-A student. I was the geeky kid—the kind who sat in the back and was an active listener. I was not the type to shove a teacher. But I did. I shoved the teacher (to snap her out of it and get her to call 911). Eventually, the paramedics came. She was in a coma for a week, and then she died. Again, it was that same feeling—I was in a life-saving situation, I was the only one who realized how serious it was, and I failed. Again.
I did not stop to think; She was probably already brain-dead. The aneurysm had already done irreversible damage. In my mind, it was Robyn, the girl whose mistakes kill people. It took me a long time—and a great deal of therapy—to embark on that hero’s journey and reframe it. I had to shift that narrative to Robyn, the woman who can take uncomfortable action.
It took many years to process all of that. And remember, at the time, I was sixteen, with undiagnosed PTSD. And this was before 9/11—before people talked about PTSD in the way we do now.
This was before Google—this was the mid-1990s. I had no idea that PTSD even existed. How would I? It’s not like I could Google it. Nowadays, kids can look things up. Some TikTok influencers will diagnose you with anything if you want. But back then, the only thing I knew about was schizophrenia. I had a distant cousin with schizophrenia, and he would sometimes come to stay with us on weekends when he had supervised release from the institution where he lived.
I was already interested in psychology at that point. I volunteered at a nursing home, and there was a floor for people with dementia and mental illness. So, schizophrenia was the only mental health condition I was even vaguely familiar with. I remember thinking, Oh, my poor mom—her husband died suddenly, and now her daughter has schizophrenia because I was seeing things that weren’t there, hearing things that weren’t there. What else could it be?
I had this lightbulb moment in undergrad. I was sitting in class, and the professor was talking about PTSD. He told the story of a Vietnam veteran who accidentally shot his wife after hearing a car backfire—he thought he was under enemy fire and had a flashback. I raised my hand and asked, “Is that only from being in war, or can that happen to people in other situations?” And the professor said, “No, anything terrifying where you think you might die can trigger it.” I asked, “What if you see someone else die?” And he said, “Yes, that could cause it.”
And I thought, “Oh. That’s what I have.” But until then, I was convinced I was mentally ill and that schizophrenia was my trajectory. I had no idea that PTSD could even be an explanation. And it’s ironic because my mom was a guidance counselor. She would’ve been the perfect person for me to talk to. But I was such a perfectionist—I wasn’t going to add to her burdens.
She had just lost her husband. There was a whole legal dispute with his business partners. She was overwhelmed. And I didn’t want to pile more on. It didn’t even occur to me to say anything to her. Not that she necessarily would have known—it’s not like PTSD was widely known or well-understood in the 1990s.
Jacobsen: Following that and your work, was there ever another event that would have been traditionally traumatic—but because of the healing you had done, your physiological response and flashback response diminished so much that it was no longer a problem?
Koslowitz: Yes. One thing I still have is this trauma adaptation where, in real moments of crisis, I’m extremely calm. So if one of my kids is choking, I’m relaxed. I do the Heimlich maneuver. I’m quiet and focused. I’ve developed a decision tree for emergencies.
I’ve been in situations of real threat where I reacted calmly, and afterward, I didn’t flash back. Because I’ve done a lot of healing work, I was able to process it, handle it, and not spiral into panic attacks or flashbacks.
Now, when I get triggered, it’s more like, Oh hey, trigger, you’re here. Welcome. You’re trying to get me to do this thing. Thanks for the info—but I’m not going to. I’m a grown-up now. I know how to handle this, and here’s what I’m going to do instead.
Even things like hitting submit on the book—Post-Traumatic Parenting—that was hard. A manuscript is never perfect. It’s never truly done. You can revise it endlessly. I write a lot, so I know that feeling well.
I blog. I have a Psychology Today blog, and I write regularly. The big thing, yes, is recognizing when hyper-perfectionism shows up. I say, “Thanks for the information. Yes, I could spend three more hours making this 2% more perfect—or I could own those three hours and do something else with them. So, I’m going to hit submit now. Good enough is going to have to be good enough.”
Jacobsen: I’ve been doing a series of long-form interviews—at least five figures in word count—for a book project that’s breaking some new ground on the global humanist, atheist, and agnostic communities, particularly among Indigenous populations. “Indigenous” here is defined by standard metrics used by the UN and other international bodies.
There’s one man I interviewed from New Zealand—he’s Māori—and he wrote the first and only book specifically for Māori atheists and secular humanists. It was published about ten years ago. No other book like it has come out since. He told me it took him a year and a half to write the 18,000-word book—a slow pace, for sure. But he had the same hesitation when it came to clicking the submit button.
He told me, “What is everyone going to think? Am I going to be rejected by my community?” That’s community trauma—”I won’t be accepted. Who’s going to come after me?” But he clicked submit, and then… nothing. Some time went by, and he told me, “I guess no one cared. It wasn’t a big deal.”
In New Zealand, things are taken lightly. The Māori are a sizable population, and while most people still hold traditional spiritual or cosmological beliefs, there’s a live-and-let-live attitude in the culture. Ultimately, publishing his book didn’t result in the backlash he had feared. It’s interesting—there’s a wide range of human experiences that can still produce that same feeling of anxiety over clicking “publish.”
Koslowitz: Yes. That’s exactly how it felt with this project—launching the book. I remember telling my agent and the editor at Broadleaf, “Okay, so the hard part is over. The book is in.” And my agent turned to the editor and said, “Should we tell her?” Because launching the book is significantly harder.
For the launch, I organized a free online summit featuring interviews with sixteen individuals whose work I admire, focusing on the intersection of trauma and parenting. We hosted the summit to promote the book. There were a lot of moving parts—plus, I’m not exactly the most tech-savvy person on the planet.
Running a free online summit meant juggling lots of details. I made some mistakes. Someone sent me an angry email, and I responded with, “I apologize. I didn’t mean to make you feel that way. There were a lot of moving parts. This was an error, and I take responsibility for it.”
And they were still mad. I asked, “What can I do to fix this?” but it did not help. And I had to accept; okay, I erred. I made a mistake. But there was a part of me that wanted to say, Never do a summit again. Never try this again. Don’t risk making mistakes.
But the truth is—that mistakes happen. Nobody died. And for me, that’s a hard thing to process and reprocess constantly.
Jacobsen: Yes. It reminds me of universalizing the Winnicott approach—”good enough” parenting. I often find that “done is better than perfect” applies to most things. Some things need to be exact, but you can usually gauge it.
Koslowitz: Yes, exactly. Parenting is one of those things you cannot do perfectly. And many post-traumatic parents are perfectionists. That’s why they love those “gentle parenting scripts”—because they want to parent perfectly. But when you’re trying to parent perfectly, you’re not present. You’re present with the script, not with the child in front of you. So ironically, you become an imperfect parent—but in the wrong direction.
Instead of connecting, you’re performing. It’s better to say, “Let me have this conversation with my child and see how it goes.” I’ve had parents come to me and say, “Because of my hang-ups—because of my history of sexual abuse—I’m uncomfortable giving my child the puberty talk. Can you do it for me?”
And I tell them, “We could—but what if we processed your discomfort? What if we explored your triggers and the pain around this topic and then helped you give that talk yourself?”
Yes, it might not go perfectly. But isn’t that better than communicating—however subtly—that this topic is too big to talk about? Because what happens if your child experiences something big and they sense it’s “too big” for you?
Wouldn’t it be better to say, “My trigger was revealed. Let me reprocess this,” and then move forward with intention?
There’s grief and shame that can come with that. Thoughts like, “Why didn’t anyone have that conversation with me?” or “Wow, eight is young—do I have to talk about this with my eight-year-old? They’re practically still a toddler.”
I recently spoke to a mom who said, “That’s the age I was when my abuse started. When we asked, How do you explain confusing touch to an eight-year-old? she said, My child is still a baby.”
So we had to process that grief—and everything that comes with it. But it would be a real loss, in terms of intergenerational transmission, if I were the one to give her child that puberty talk. Or the good touch/bad touch talk. Or the “You’re going to summer camp for the first time—if there’s a confusing touch, here’s what you do” talk. Or “These are the kinds of things tricky adults might say or do.”
If I’m the one who has that conversation with her, we’re reifying the idea that this is way too big a topic for Mom. As opposed to: Let’s process it. Let’s work through it. I can also teach you the essential points.
There are better and worse ways to discuss these topics with children, and guidance is available on what is developmentally appropriate. We can go over all of that. I can give you the information. We can process it together. We can talk to your inner child and say, “Yes, it’s sad that no one did this with you.”
We can do all of that. And when you have the conversation with your child, you’re going to start healing, too. I include a lot of practices like that in the book—ways you can clue your inner child into what you’re doing with your real-world child. Because in parenting, we are also being parented.
We can heal. Which sounds so “woo-woo.” Inner child work is often dismissed in this way. But to me, it’s a great metaphor. Just like the trauma app—it’s a metaphor for how the brain processes overwhelming experience.
Jacobsen: Anytime you talk to an expert. You’re talking to someone who knows what’s DSM-based and what’s a metaphor—what’s grounded in clinical research versus what’s just being used illustratively. You touched on something important there: some things that sound like “woo-woo” are helpful metaphors. They’re meant to be educational, providing someone with a structure that helps them build insight or change their behaviour. But there’s also nonsense being pushed—things based on thin or no evidence, which are being asserted as 100% truth. That can be harmful.
Koslowitz: Yes. That’s a significant risk. Much psychotherapy is based on metaphor and story because a substantial portion of healing is rooted in narrative. But, as you said, when the metaphor becomes reified—when it’s treated as literal fact—that’s where it becomes risky.
That’s where psychology trickles down, and people forget the metaphor was never meant to be fact. It’s not like I can put you in an MRI and find your “inner child.” She’s not perched in some region of your brain.
I had a cute little boy say to me once, when we were talking about “Mr. Worry” in his brain, “No actual Mr. Worry is sitting in my brain.” And I said, “Yes! Exactly!”
Jacobsen: Kids are often more sensible than adults sometimes.
Koslowitz: Yes. They are.
Jacobsen: So, why is self-regulation a good first step to effective parenting? And I also want to tie that into being authentic as a parent. You mentioned scripts earlier—so if we remove the scripts and deal with the real person, then we can focus on what works for effective parenting. That’s the kind of connection I want to draw.
So, yes: Why is self-regulation important for effective parenting? And why is it essential to get rid of the scripts and be a real, present person with your kids? Authentic parent, effective parent, self-regulation.
Koslowitz: I feel that when you have a trauma app in your brain, it can cause you to look at your child as a problem to be solved instead of a person to parent—a person to engage with. So when people say, “Help me deal with my emotions,” what they’re saying is, “Help me deal with what emotions are doing to my body.”
People often dislike the feeling of being overwhelmed with anger, sadness, or fear. They want that to go away. Here’s where it might sound “woo-woo,” but it is grounded in solid science: There’s no such thing as pure self-regulation. What we call self-regulation is mentalized co-regulation—meaning, at some point in your life, someone regulated with you. A parent taught you how.
For example, a child falls and skins their knee. A parent—who could be a mom, dad, or other caregiver—says, “You fell. Your knee hurts. You’re bleeding. Let’s get a bandage.” Then maybe they say, “Oh, you’re sad,” or, “That’s frustrating,” or, “You’re angry.”
The child starts to understand: This overwhelming sensation in my body has a name. When they learn to name it, the sensation becomes manageable. That’s what Daniel Siegel calls “Name it to tame it.”
When we label our physical sensations, the left prefrontal cortex is activated, and our emotions don’t need to keep yelling at us to be noticed. When that happens enough—through a strong, safe attachment relationship—you internalize it. You no longer need Mom to narrate your emotions. Your inner mom does it for you.
You might think, “Oh, I fell. It’s a scrape. I’ll be fine.” And you move on. Then, as an adult, you can do the same for your child. But here’s the problem: If no one ever co-regulated with you, then you never learned to self-regulate. You may have learned to suppress your emotions, to shut them down, but not how to say, “I’m angry right now.” And then process what that means.
Anger identifies a problem. The way they acted—that was a boundary violation. I’m not okay with that. But now, how do I want to respond?
I could yell. I could write a strongly worded email. I could calmly state my boundaries. I have many options. Which one do I choose?
If no adult ever taught you that the feeling you’re experiencing is anger and that anger has a function—that it gives you focused energy and an action imperative—you may never learn that you have a choice. You might believe the only options are to stuff it down or explode.
It may never have occurred to you that self-regulation is even something you can learn. But it is. It’s what Viktor Frankl described—between stimulus and response, there is a pause. No one ever gave you that pause. No one ever handed that to you. That’s what self-regulation is. And now, you’re supposed to be doing that with your child.
But your brain is priming you to co-regulate with your kid—and if you were never taught how to do that, it becomes tough. So what happens? You go back to your trauma app, and it says, Well, either I’m going to do this perfectly… or, as I describe in my book, one of five types of post-traumatic parents emerges. You either go into perfectionism, or you disengage entirely, or you become paralyzed and try to do ten contradictory things at once. None of those approaches are currently effective.
Parenting becomes the perfect opportunity to say, I need to learn how to self-regulate. Maybe I did not experience mentalized co-regulation growing up, but I can be my co-regulator now. I can be my own “inner parent.” Again, metaphor—not hard science—but I can be my inner cheerleader.
It’s my voice. I can say to myself, “Robyn, you’re feeling under threat right now. That’s why you want to do everything perfectly. But you don’t have to. It’s okay if you make a mistake.” I could do that for myself if I didn’t have a parent who did it for me. And that’s what we want to teach our kids. Emotions are not the enemy. Emotions are not the problem. That’s what we want to pass on.
I had this experience when I was a new mom. I already knew I was a post-traumatic parent—I didn’t have that term yet, but I knew I had PTSD. I knew I was dissociating. I didn’t know how my body felt when I experienced strong emotions, so I avoided feeling anything too deeply.
Then I had these adorable twin boys—huge bundles of emotion that they just threw out into the world. I remember one of them would get so frustrated trying to put two Duplo blocks together. If they didn’t fit, he would shriek, pull his hair, or bang his head on the wall because he was so mad.
I had a supervisor, Dr. Esther Buckholtz, a child analyst who was a student of Winnicott’s. I asked her, “What do I do with this kid?” At the time, I had four children—two older daughters who were very well-behaved and expressed only socially acceptable emotions. Things like, “My dolly broke,” and I’d say, “Oh, you’re so sad.” That I could handle.
But what do I do with this anger?
Esther said, “Hold his hands, look him in the eye, and say: “Angry, angry, angry. You’re feeling angry. Say ‘angry.'”
So I did that. And eventually, he’d say, “Angy,” then he’d cry, and then he’d calm down.
But I needed Esther to teach me how to do that—because I had never been taught how to do that for myself. In teaching my son, I was learning too.
I recall a humorous moment—my mom used to watch my kids while I was in graduate school. She always drank her coffee from these delicate china mugs. One time, one of the twins pulled the tablecloth, and the mug went flying. Hot coffee and broken china were everywhere. My mother started screaming at the kids to get away—she was freaking out.
My son went over to her, held her hands, looked her in the eye, and said, “Angy, angy, angy.” It was like, “Wow—he gets this.” He understands loud voices. He understands fear, but was mislabelling fear as anger. But he also understands the concept of autonomic arousal—Say “angry,” and then you feel better. That’s huge. He taught it. This is good.
Jacobsen: Why is the reclamation of joy, spontaneity, and playfulness important for people who have experienced any variety of trauma?
Koslowitz: Some people have minimized problems, and things can go pretty well for them—and good for them. However, I want to focus on those who have truly experienced it. So, let’s look at this through a parenting lens.
There’s a concept in attachment theory that Dan Siegel talks about—the four S’s of attachment: safe, seen, soothed, and secure. If a parent can make a child feel those four things, then you have the foundation of secure attachment.
So, you want to ensure your kids are receiving those four S’s. Think about it: “safe,” “soothed,” and “secure” are all about sharing your calm with your child. That’s co-regulation. That’s about ensuring everybody is safe and that their basic human needs are met—eating, sleeping, and maintaining a routine. That helps them understand how to manage their emotions. It’s all about stability.
But “seen”—that’s different. “Seen” is about sharing your joy. It’s about delighting in your child. It’s that attunement: when the child finally clicks two Duplo blocks together and holds them up proudly, and the parent says, “Yes! You did it!” Or the kid yells, “Look, Ma—no hands!” while riding a bike, or they make it across the monkey bars for the first time.
And the parent is right there with that gleam in their eyes—“You did it! I see you!” It’s that cheerleader energy. That’s being seen. But here’s the thing: trauma robs you of both your calm and your joy. So, how do you share your calm and joy if you don’t have access to either?
That’s the fundamental attachment problem for any post-traumatic parent. Everyone keeps saying, “Share your calm, share your joy.” That’s the bottom line of every parenting book. If you boiled down the whole shelf of parenting literature, you’d get that mantra: “Share your calm, share your joy.”
“Share your calm” might show up as structure, rules, and discipline. In a more somatic or trauma-informed parenting model, it may mean co-regulating with your child. Either way, the principle is the same: Make your child feel safe. Make your child feel seen.
But those are the two things PTSD robs you of. That’s why so many post-traumatic parents read parenting books and end up feeling more shame, more self-doubt, more self-blame—because the book is telling you to do something that feels impossible.
The metaphor I like to use is this: Imagine you’re in a mall, and you need to get from the second floor to the roof. So you go to the map, and it tells you—go left, find this bank of elevators, take the elevator up, then go up one more flight of stairs, and you’re at the roof. Great.
But what if you’re in the sub-basement, and the lights are off, and there is no map? You understand how to get from the second floor to the roof—but you’re not even on the second floor. You’re trapped below, trying to figure out how even to reach that starting point.
And I feel like every parenting book misses that—how to get from the sub-basement to the second floor. That’s why I wrote Post-Traumatic Parenting—to get you from the sub-basement to the second floor.
And then—then—pick the parenting approach you want to use. But that’s why people feel blocked. That’s why people who read parenting books say, “I can’t do any of this stuff.” Because they’re in the sub-basement.
If you were already on the second floor, it would be fine.
So it’s hard when people say, “Self-regulate. Be that authentic parent.” If you don’t authentically know who you are—if you don’t know how to self-regulate—how are you supposed to co-regulate with a child?
If your body is still your enemy—if your trauma tells you that anytime you feel stress, you must get rid of it immediately—then how can you develop emotional resilience?
Your body never told you that there is such a thing as good stress. But stress is not inherently bad. Your stress response is your body’s way of helping you rise to meet a challenge. But you have to know that. You have to reinterpret that experience.
Sometimes, that’s why I recommend re-engaging with your body—through exercise, movement, or sensation training. Because you have to get reacquainted with your body. You have to look at your stress response and say, “Oh, this isn’t dangerous. This is just my body helping me. Now—what do I want to do with it?”
Jacobsen: What is the role of therapy in that process? What other support systems help?
Koslowitz: Therapy is very much about reprocessing, reinterpreting, and reintegrating what happened to you. It’s about working with someone who already knows how to do these things and who can guide you through the process.
Sometimes, people come into therapy and say, “But I could figure this stuff out myself.” And sure—you could.
But here’s an analogy: Imagine you go to a potluck dinner in your neighbourhood, and someone brings this fantastic cake. And you think, “Wow, this cake is incredible—she put something in it, but I can’t figure out what.” You could try to reverse-engineer it. You could do what they do on those British baking shows—pull apart the crumbs and guess whether there’s baking soda or a fruit purée. Try to think if there’s some special ingredient.
Sure, you could do that. Keep going back to the store, buying ingredients, experimenting, baking cake after cake, trying to recreate it.
Or—you could walk over to the person who made it and say, “That was a fantastic cake. What’s your recipe?” And she’ll say, “Oh! The secret ingredient is prune juice.” And you think, I never would’ve guessed that—but now I know. I can do that, too.
That’s what therapy is. It is not that you can’t figure out the thermostat or the ingredients. It’s just that treatment gives you access to someone who already has the recipe.
I like that better—it’s probably less offensive to therapists. But it’s similar to saying, “I could figure out how to do my taxes.” For example, I have a podcast, and I have someone who posts it online for me. I could figure out the tech. It would take much time—but I could do it. Or I could hire someone who’s done it two million times already.
All of that stuff—multimedia, tech, production—is undervalued. Totally. Props to those folks.
Yes, I could figure out how to program my website and not need a web admin. But given that I’m highly trained as a psychologist and not trained at all in coding, it makes more sense to hire someone who knows how to run a website—so I can focus on doing what I’m trained to do.
There is a great deal of mystique surrounding therapy and therapists. But really, therapy is just about going to the person who has the recipe. The person who knows how to do it. Meanwhile, all these clocks are ticking while you’re trying and failing to figure this stuff out. If you have kids, it might make sense to hire someone who already knows how to guide you through this.
In my book, I talk about what I believe is true for all trauma-informed psychotherapy. Every legitimate trauma therapy I know—whether it’s Internal Family Systems, EMDR, Cognitive Processing Therapy, or Trauma-Focused CBT—has three core components: acceptance, integration, and meaning.
That’s what all of them aim for.
First, acceptance: stopping counterfactual thinking—shutting down the part of your brain that’s trying to undo the trauma or rationalize why it happened. We stop that. We say, “This is what happened.”
Then comes integration: weaving that trauma into your sense of self and your ongoing story.
And finally, meaning: making meaning or finding a mission from what happened. What have I learned from this? That’s a favourite question my therapist asks: “So what have we learned?”
AIM—Acceptance, Integration, Meaning.
If you examine any evidence-based trauma therapy, they all have some form of AIM. Perhaps there’s a therapy I’m not aware of, but I’m not referring to things that are non-empirical or outside the accepted schools of thought.
If someone says, “I went on a crystal healing retreat,” and it has no AIM component—well, I don’t know how crystals work. That’s not what I do. But are trauma therapies grounded in science? They all include these core elements.
Now, one particular therapy might not work for you. The metaphors may not resonate. The delivery might not land well with your nervous system. However, there is likely another therapy that will work. It’s about calling the person with the recipe.
Jacobsen: How do you overcome, with the help of the “chef,” those internalized voices that are not helpful—so you can regain your authentic voice as a parent?
Koslowitz: That’s an important question. One of the things trauma can rob you of is your sense of self. You start to confuse your trauma adaptations with your identity. You think, “This is just who I am.”
I used to consider myself a determined and driven person. Sometimes, it takes a therapist to ask the question that gets you to see things differently. One of my therapists once said to me—after I had just said, “I’m a driven person”—she asked, “When do you get to be the driver?”
That was a great question.
Jacobsen: That hits the nail on the head. That’s great. I love that.
Koslowitz: Right? Because you are not always going to see those things from within. When you’re inside the maze, it’s hard to know where you’re going. But someone who’s watching from outside the maze can say, “Hey, turn left—that’s a blind alley.” A therapist can do that for you.
Sometimes, therapy is about giving your inner voice an actual voice. Like—who told you that about yourself? Who said you were only valuable if you never made a mistake? Or only lovable if you were always calm?
Sometimes, it’s just a therapist opening the door to say, “That’s one way to handle that problem—but are you aware there are other options?”
And people are often stunned. “What? I can do that?” They’ll say, “I could just tell my friend that what she said hurt my feelings?” That idea never even occurred to them.
Not because they’re not intelligent or self-aware—but because, going back to neuroplasticity, if you’ve rehearsed one way of responding for your whole life, it may not even occur to you that another path exists—until someone helps interrupt the pattern.
And sometimes, your brain is capable of finding that path. In EMDR—Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing—it’s not always the therapist who says, “Here’s a new way to look at it.” It’s your brain that begins to say, “Wait a second… I should have known better.” And then another part of your brain says, “But I was only eight. Eight is young. Maybe I couldn’t have known better.”
That belief begins to evolve into something more realistic, compassionate, and accurate. That is reprocessing.
It’s similar to Internal Family Systems (IFS) therapy. The person’s system often comes up with the answers. The therapist helps guide the process along.
In more traditional approaches, such as Cognitive Processing Therapy, it may be more therapist-directed. The therapist might say something like, “I wonder—at eight years old, could you have known not to believe your stepfather when he said this is a normal game that people play?” Maybe eight-year-olds don’t know that. Could it be?
Every culture has foundational similarities—we’re all the same species, doing the same human stuff. But there are cultural seasonings and icings layered on top.
Jacobsen: What are things to keep in mind about cultural sensitivities and inclusivity of approach when you’re working with someone from a particular culture—someone who has experienced trauma that’s negatively affecting their parenting and making them less effective than they could be?
Koslowitz: First of all, you have to remember that parenting is a form of acculturation. A considerable aspect of parenting involves transmitting cultural truths and wisdom. Too often, we focus on the negatives of culture—the things we want to dismantle or challenge—and forget there are also positives.
There are truths and wisdom about the world that parents want to pass on—what I think of as the inherited wealth of generations. Parents are trying to transmit that legacy.
My dissertation research was based on something called the core cultural assumptions method. The idea is that every culture has a set of core assumptions. And if you try to offer a parenting intervention that doesn’t take those assumptions into account, it simply won’t land well.
So, the first step is to ask people about their cultural assumptions—curiously and respectfully. Every single psychotherapeutic interaction is a cross-cultural interaction because every human being is a culture unto themselves—a culture of one.
So you have to stay curious. Ask: How do things function in this culture? And—before you try to “take down a fence,”you need to understand what that fence is protecting.
There’s a famous quote that says: “Before you take down a fence, find out what it was built to protect.” And that applies deeply to therapy. Sometimes therapists are trained in this very old-school, psychoanalytic idea that we’re going to break down the defences, storm the emotional beaches—”We’re going in.”
Let’s not. Instead, let’s ask, “Why is this defence here?” Then we can ask, “Is there another way to still honour this cultural value in a way that causes less harm?”
Let’s say, for example, someone comes from a family where they were repeatedly fat-shamed. Older relatives made passive-aggressive comments, and now this client feels threatened because they’re bringing their daughter into that environment.
However, there is a deeply rooted cultural value of respecting elders. You don’t just confront your great-aunt directly. You respect your great-aunt.
So the question becomes: Is there a respectful way to communicate a boundary? You are not going to say, “I’ve been in twenty years of eating disorder therapy because of you, so don’t you dare talk to my daughter that way.”
That is not going to work. It’s not culturally appropriate.
Instead, can you say something like, “We’re trying something new with our daughter. We’re focusing on health and happiness and not commenting on appearance.”
That keeps the value of respect intact—but also protects your child. That’s what culturally inclusive, trauma-informed parenting work looks like.
Because that is not honouring the cultural value of respect, so you’re going to feel bad. But at the same time, your anger has a place here. What is the most innovative way to handle that? Is there something you could say to your great-aunt that will honour your experience and your boundaries but also not be read as disrespectful?
We’re not going to take down the system just because it is flawed. That rarely works. Sure, it might be a great adolescent fantasy to bring Alice Cooper to your family holiday party and scream, “We’re not gonna take it anymore!”—but that is not effective long-term.
Jacobsen: Well, that connects with how you’re responding here—because when you’re building the argument for the approach, people reading that will begin to get a sense of what effective therapy, communication, and therapeutic strategy looks like. You are incorporating culture, the individual, and treatments that work—sort of as a package.
Koslowitz: Yes, it takes a trained professional to do that. It takes much work to ask: Is there another way to accomplish this? You completely understand that cultural value is essential. But is there still a way to uphold that value that doesn’t harm you?
Often, there is. And often, when you do that, it’s hard at first. The first time you try it, it might feel impossible. But like we said earlier—because of neuroplasticity—the more you rehearse it, the easier it becomes.
The first time, it’s tough. By the fifteenth time, though, it starts to feel natural. So, if someone is making a passive-aggressive comment about how you’re parenting your kids, you might say, “This is what works for my family.” You say it kindly, respectfully, and leave it there.
Jacobsen: Right. And they may not like it.
Koslowitz: They may say, “You’re not answering my question.” And you might respond, “I love that you love me. I love that you’re curious about this.” You can respond with warmth while still maintaining your boundaries. For example, “Yes, I’m not answering your question about whether my kid is on Ritalin, or a diet, or whatever else.”
Jacobsen: When I used to work in high-stress environments—restaurants, horse farms, construction—seven days a week in some, I had to learn how to respond to those nosy, sly comments. Sometimes I’d say, “I love you too.” That was enough. It can diffuse the situation. That seems to diffuse it with warmth and humour.
Koslowitz: It can. And the bigger idea here is that any therapist who comes in with respect and curiosity—rather than an imperialist attitude of “I am the healer, and I know what is correct”—is going to be more effective. That imperialist mindset does not help.
Instead, come in with: “I wonder why it feels so scary to go to the family holiday party. I wonder why you feel like you have to answer all of your great-aunt’s questions. And I wonder if she’ll feel disrespected if you don’t.” Okay, well—is there a way where she won’t feel disrespected, and you also won’t have to answer those questions?
That kind of approach can be collaborative.
Jacobsen: Are there particular quagmires you encounter, where even though you try to integrate various approaches and understandings, the situation is just inevitably going to be a headache? As a therapist, I cannot imagine that every cross-referenced method is always foolproof.
Koslowitz: Absolutely. There are always times when you mess up. You misread something. You misunderstand something. Especially in psychotherapy—particularly when using a family approach—sometimes you do have to privilege the needs of one person over another. That is part of the complexity.
This means that I could help this parent come to an understanding of how they need to parent their teenager over a long period—but much damage is being done quickly. So, I may have to step in a bit more. I may have to help them get there faster than I ordinarily would, as we are dealing with a teenager who is currently acting out.
There are times in therapy when the idea that we can represent everyone’s interests equally at all times is simply not accurate. Sometimes clocks are ticking—urgent timelines where we must make a decision. I recently had a case like this: a mother was in a real psychiatric crisis. Her psychiatrist wanted to admit her, but she felt this was a crucial time in her kids’ lives and said, “I can’t abandon them.”
As the professionals, we had to say, “This is heading in a dangerous direction.” So we helped her troubleshoot—who could be with the kids, how she might participate in the graduation remotely or at another time—but ultimately, the hospitalization had to happen.
Sometimes, there are these moments when a psychiatric or psychological consideration must be prioritized because real harm could result otherwise. That’s just the reality. Timing can be awful, especially with children. It’s never an excellent time for a mother to have a breakdown—there’s always a child with a need. However, if a meltdown is imminent, all we can do is minimize the harm surrounding it. We should not lie to ourselves and say, “It’ll be fine; just go to the graduation.” That is not always possible.
Jacobsen: That connects with the Convention on the Rights of the Child, not the parent—which implies it’s the responsibility of the parent and the rights of the child.
Koslowitz: Yes, particularly in individualistic cultures, we tend to forget that. I have a core belief: adults are responsible for protecting children. Children should not be protecting adults. Sometimes, we put children in the position of defending themselves when that burden should fall on the adults in their lives.
The more healed people are, the more they can protect their children. Self-care is childcare—on a fundamental level.
Jacobsen: This may be more of a cultural psychology or social psychology comment as well as a question. If people have done that work—whether consciously through therapy or even by accident—they tend to have more emotional and cognitive reserve. They are not constantly stressed or depleted. So, generally speaking, they become more productive and proactive citizens, more engaged and healthy contributors to both social and family life.
So there’s a cascading effect—a series of positive knock-on effects—from even one person doing that inner work. Whether it happens in a structured therapeutic space or as an organic response to life forcing them to confront something they had been avoiding, they eventually come to a healthier state. Even if the process is imperfect, it can still be transformative.
Koslowitz: Yes. That’s the essence of Post-Traumatic Parenting. When your kids reveal your triggers, acknowledging them can help you heal. That moment—when your child’s behaviour triggers something in you—is not just a crisis. It’s also an opportunity. It is not, “Oh no, I’m being triggered just when my kid needs me.” It’s, “This is the moment where healing can happen.”
It is the opportune time to heal. Research shows that the brain—particularly a mother’s brain during matrescence and in the early years of her child’s life—is more neuroplastic. Your brain is already rewiring itself, so it is an excellent opportunity to rewire some of those trauma responses. Your brain is primed to regenerate.
When working with children, it is often easier in some ways because their brains are so neuroplastic. They are constantly forming new connections. It is significantly easier to help a seven-year-old with severe anxiety than a 37-year-old who has been rehearsing that anxiety pattern for 30 years.
Jacobsen: Yes. And not many people are going to throw themselves into something as intense as Navy SEAL training or astronaut training to reprogram their response patterns.
Koslowitz: Exactly. However, parenting is a form of training. It is the boot camp. It is a complete emotional reset for everything: your emotional responses, your trauma reactions, and your regulation skills. Until you’ve felt the intense frustration of, say, a three-year-old who takes off their socks and shoes for the 30th time while the school bus is already honking outside and you’ve got to get other kids ready—you do not know what that’s like. The level of irrationality a small child can present, and the intense rage it can provoke, is unparalleled.
Jacobsen: I would add one more layer to that. North America has made progress on gender parity, but that parenting boot camp is still disproportionately thrust on women. There has been movement forward, absolutely—but in many households, it is still women bearing the brunt.
Koslowitz: Yes, and there’s the additional cultural pressure on women to be nurturing, kind, and calm at all times. So, it becomes a double burden. You are carrying more of the mental load, and you are supposed to smile through it. The cultural expectation is that the mother finds it adorable when her toddler throws their shoes off for the 30th time—even if she’s late and everything is falling apart.
Jacobsen: And that combination—the emotional and cognitive labour of parenting—has become such a political flashpoint in recent years. In many regions, particularly in North America, women are expected to balance the full professional burden of emancipation alongside the domestic and emotional labour still expected of them.
And unlike in many Western European countries, North American women often do not have the same institutional and financial support—such as universal childcare and parental leave. So, the demands are higher, and the support systems are weaker.
Koslowitz: Yes. And then layer in the added awareness around gentle parenting and conscious parenting, which are good in theory but can become yet another way to feel like you are falling short. It becomes a perfect storm for shame—especially for women. All these competing expectations create a setup for self-blame.
Because you’re somehow supposed to—well, you could take that whole Barbie monologue and swap in parenting; you’re supposed to be professional but not care too much about your career. You’re supposed to love your kids but not talk about them all the time. And it’s… okay?
And there is probably that one person in your social circle who, at least on the surface, looks like they are pulling it all off. And then you add social media into the mix—you’re looking at everyone’s best moments, but you’re only experiencing your own worst moments. And somehow, you’re comparing your worst to everyone else’s best.
Jacobsen: Yes. The social media comment—that’s more pronounced for Gen Z, mostly. It’s typically around aesthetics: how do I look, and how do I look in some other beautiful place?
That said, there is a fetishization of parenting on specific social platforms. There are two primary caricatures: one is the “boss babe” in the professional realm, and the other is the “trad wife” in the domestic sphere. That idealized, perfectly curated image of motherhood aligns with the traditional narrative of the wife.
Koslowitz: it is not just a Gen Z phenomenon. Even millennials and Gen X, who mostly use Instagram and not newer platforms, get caught in that. There are so many pressures. The aesthetics of how your home looks, how your body looks, how you talk to your kids, how your playroom looks—or even how their lunchboxes look.
And what about that gray, hyper-minimalist landscape of children’s playrooms? Because some influencers decided that they should all be in neutral tones, such as beige or gray. For three-year-olds! It’s ridiculous.
Jacobsen: Who was that Japanese woman who said everything should “spark joy”?
Koslowitz: Marie Kondo.
Jacobsen: Yes! Marie Kondo. I am unsure if this is apocryphal or not—if it is, I will include that disclaimer—but supposedly after she had her third child, she gave up trying to keep everything perfectly clean. Someone commented on that and said, “This is my mood right now.” It’s a very North American commentary on a Japanese icon.
Koslowitz: But the truth is, kids accumulate stuff. And some of that is developmentally appropriate. Ten-year-olds have their collections. And people are constantly handing children randomly shaped bits of plastic that are not going to fit your playroom’s beige aesthetic.
If you are going to feel bad about yourself every time that happens, and if your kid is in love with something—like some hideous plastic poo figurine that sings a song when you press its belly—then maybe it is time to log off that social media feed.
Especially if your feed is all boss babe aesthetic, gorgeous playroom aesthetic, organic cooking bento box lunches that look like Sleeping Beauty—whatever, and if you have all of those in your feed, all they do is feed your perfectionism. Telling you: you’re a bad mom. You’re a bad mom.
So maybe—going back to Marie Kondo—if that person’s feed isn’t sparking joy, perhaps stop following it.
Jacobsen: Philip Zimbardo, before he passed, talked about how we live in societies in transition.
So, there’s this whole commentary about men in crisis—blah blah blah, but what he was more getting at was the idea that when society is in transition, parenting becomes a much more plural affair—it has to meet children where they are, societally.
We’re seeing a wider acceptance of single parents, single moms, single dads, gay marriages, gay parenting, and so on. I would also appreciate your commentary on some of those aspects.
Because traditionally, the single mom was divorced, gave up her educational or professional life for the kids and the husband—and now she’s divorced. She hasn’t had the time to retrain, and she’s having to take jobs that practically guarantee poverty. The man may or may not—most often not—pay child support.
And so, you have this context of effective parenting. Not every society is entirely on board with this from a cultural sensitivity perspective, but much of global culture has been moving in that direction. It’s bumpy and fragmented, yes, but it’s moving.
I’m currently in Reykjavik conducting fieldwork on gender parity. It’s been number one in the world for fifteen years straight—a quarter of a century now. So it’s kind of at the heart of things. The only contradictory point I’ve found regarding Iceland’s comprehensive gender parity is that few women I know enjoy being cold all the time.
In North America, there is a broader acceptance of various family styles and family formations. If we’re thinking of two parents, we’re thinking of gay marriage—so lesbian and gay men parenting. We’re also thinking of trans parents and single parents. And particularly, we’re seeing more economic emancipation of women.
With that, we expect to see a wider acceptance of these realities over time. So, “effective parenting” is a broad term—and it must take into account broader cultural contexts. Are there specific considerations we need to take into account at the family level when dealing with one parent or non-heteronormative parents?
Koslowitz: There are a few things to think about. First of all, parenting is something that’s meant to be done more communally. We’re wired to parent in groups—not to do it all by ourselves. So if you’re a single parent—whether that’s by choice or by circumstance—obviously, that’s going to be a little bit harder because there’s only one person to carry what can be a heavy load.
In those situations, it’s about choosing family—figuring out who your people are. Who’s in your neighbourhood? Perhaps it’s different people in the same building who share specific parenting responsibilities, such as “I’ll watch the kids on Tuesday, you watch them on Wednesday.”
There are ways to find support even when you don’t have a natural village—meaning you’re not living near lots of great aunts, grandmas, or other family members who can help out. Then we have to create our villages. That’s just an acknowledgment that parenting is not meant to be a solo task. It’s a difficult task to carry on your own.
So, who else can help carry that? Who are the people? Because there are people. If you look around, you can find them—because you can be their people too.
I remember when I was a grad student and didn’t have a budget for anything. A few of my friends were in the same boat—we were all parents, all at the beginning of our careers, with little kids and no budget. We figured out these ways: “I’ll take all the kids today if you take all the kids tomorrow.” That way, I could get some focused work done, and then she could. And honestly, it’s as easy to entertain four kids as it is to engage two—sometimes easier.
Or: “I’m going to the grocery store—can I take everyone’s list, load everyone’s boxes into my car this week, and you’ll do it next week?” The idea is that’s how it always was supposed to be. Parenting was always meant to be a shared experience. Sometimes, we have to look beyond that individualistic cultural assumption and ask for help, ask for support—and also be that help and support because that helps us, too.
When you give kindness, you feel the world is a kinder place. Looking outside yourself for support can be super helpful. It’s not necessary to have a need. And some humans will be there for that need. That’s one thing. The other thing I want to talk about is this: your biological plumbing doesn’t matter when it comes to being an attachment figure. Yes, the attachment literature is super gendered because Bowlby and Winnicott were parents and psychologists in the 1950s when everything was quite gendered.
However, it doesn’t matter what your plumbing is like. If you are the person providing the Four S’s of attachment to a child, you are an attachment figure. We say “mom” in the classical literature as a shortcut for “primary attachment figure.”But mom doesn’t have to be that. Dad can be the primary attachment figure. Grandma can be. Two dads can be.
Jacobsen: That must be why gangs and cartels work. This is their new family.
Koslowitz: Yes. The attachment system—people often talk about it as if it’s this fragile thing, that if you don’t have that specific maternal attachment object, then your attachment is doomed. But if you have a caregiver who is consistently providing the Four S’s—someone who is there, who is present, who co-regulates with you—that’s what you need.
So this idea that if you’re not co-sleeping with mom until you’re four years old, living on a farm where she’s feeding you produce made with her own hands—you’re not attaching properly—is misleading. It is perfectly okay for a child to have a couple of attachment figures as long as those people are loving, stable, and kind presences in their life.
High-quality daycare, where the teacher remains the same every day and where it’s predictable, stable, loving, and kind, is unlikely to harm attachment. The attachment system is designed to accommodate multiple users. It’s designed to know: these are my attachment figures, these are my people. So when we mysticize this “mother figure” concept and make it exclusively gendered, we lose sight of the fact that anyone who is that stable presence in a child’s life—providing the Four S’s—can be the primary attachment figure.
This is not a biological thing. This is a psychological thing. The question is: am I providing this or not? And anyone can learn how.
I had this experience working with a family where the mom had a terminal cancer diagnosis. Many of her sisters—so the aunts—were all saying, “Which one of us is taking the kids?” But the question was never: “How do we support Dad in raising his children?” The kids were about to lose their mother, and no one even thought to ask how the father could be supported in becoming their primary attachment figure.
And when I raised that question—”I wonder if, instead of deciding who gets the ‘Best Mother Replacement’ crown, we could ask how to help Dad remain the primary attachment figure”—the entire conversation changed. That was ultimately the decision that was made.
Dad thought it over and realized: “Wait a minute, I’m their father. There’s no reason why I can’t do this.” Some of the objections were things like: “Well, he doesn’t know how to cook.” Okay—but if you can read, you can cook. You don’t need female plumbing to cook. And there’s Uber Eats. And if this extended family is truly so supportive, they can pitch in with meals. There are many ways to get food into children. Then it was: “What else don’t you know how to do, Dad?”And we just worked through it from there.
So now you will be the one who does this, that, and the other thing. Can you do that? Are you capable of remembering that bath night should be every other night? Does that homework need to be done? Are you capable of doing that? It was so interesting how, in that family system, the question had not even been raised: “How do we support Dad?” The question was, “Which aunt is taking the kids?” It did not even occur to them.
I had a similar experience that I wrote about in my book. One of my children’s camp forms automatically populated “Mother’s cell” as the emergency contact. I called the camp office and said, “I need you to undo this because my husband is the emergency contact—I’m frequently with patients, and my phone is off.”
The secretary, rather than hearing me out, got judgmental. She asked, “What kind of a mother doesn’t want to be the first one informed if her child is in a medical emergency?”
Thankfully, I’ve taught people how to deal with bullies, and I no longer have much self-doubt about my love for my kids. There was a time when I was told that being a career woman meant I didn’t love my kids as much as a stay-at-home mom. But I said to her, “A mom who wants her kids to survive.” Because if there’s a medical emergency and you call my cell—which is off—that would be a bad thing.
Then it turned out the whole reason she was bullying me was because she did not know how to change the form. And I thought, “So you’re going to make me question all my life choices because you need a computer programmer?” That was the real issue—not sociology, not parenting philosophy—just someone needing tech support.
Jacobsen: I know what some of your go-tos are going to be, but let’s see if you surprise me. As a psychologist, what are your favourite quotes—on psychology or parenting as a whole?
Koslowitz: Let me put some thought into that. Obviously, as a psychologist, I love the quote: “Between stimulus and response, there is a pause. In that pause lies your humanity.” It’s often attributed to Viktor Frankl, though there’s some debate about that. Still, it’s a beautiful and powerful idea.
Another quote I love for my own life is from Eleanor Roosevelt: “No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.” My follow-up is: So stop consenting. That applies in so many situations.
On social media, if some influencer’s curated reel is making you feel inadequate about your life choices, stop following her. If someone is questioning your decision to parent in a gentle, responsive way and making you feel judged—do not consent to feeling judged.
And finally, there’s that Winnicott quote: “Even the beneficial is toxic in excess.” The idea that trying to be perfect is toxic—it is one of the worst things you can do to yourself.
Between those three quotes, I can reset my mindset and ground myself again. I remind myself that I don’t have to be perfect. That would be toxic.
Jacobsen: Robyn, thank you so much for your time today. I appreciate your expertise, and it was nice to meet you.
Koslowitz: Same here. I enjoyed our conversation.
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): 2025/08/15
Chip Lupo is an experienced personal finance writer currently contributing to WalletHub. With a background in journalism from Elon University, he has worked across various sectors, including finance, sports, politics, and religion. Chip has expertise in SEO best practices, content creation, and editing and proficiency in Microsoft and Adobe applications. His career spans over two decades, during which he has held roles as a compliance analyst, wire editor, and night city editor. Chip’s passion for media and communications drives his commitment to high-quality content.
WalletHub analyst Chip Lupo breaks down the 2025 rankings of U.S. cities for recreation, highlighting how entertainment access, park quality, affordability, and weather shape each city’s score. Cities like Las Vegas and Orlando lead the way, while suburbs lag. Recreational access links directly to public health and financial savings.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are joined by prolific WalletHub analyst Chip Lupo to discuss their latest ranking of the best and worst U.S. cities for recreation.
One of the key takeaways is that being active not only benefits personal health but can also lead to significant financial savings—WalletHub notes that maintaining a healthy weight through exercise can save people nearly $1,900 in health care costs annually.
When looking at the 2025 rankings, the top five cities for recreation are:
- Las Vegas, NV
- Cincinnati, OH
- Orlando, FL
- Atlanta, GA
- Tampa, FL
These cities were evaluated across four critical dimensions:
- Entertainment & recreational facilities
- Costs
- Quality of parks
- Weather
What stood out to you in this survey and analysis?
Chip Lupo: It is interesting because, for the most part, these cities are already known as popular travel destinations. However, you would not necessarily expect parks and other recreational amenities to be a significant part of their appeal.
What is even more intriguing is that each of the top five cities had strengths and weaknesses across the four dimensions WalletHub used for ranking.
All five cities ranked in the top 15 for entertainment and recreational facilities. That includes metrics like the number of attractions, music venues, coffee shops, public beaches, tennis courts, swimming pools, and more. However, not all of them did well across the board.
For example:
- Atlanta ranked 61st in cost, which dragged down its overall score.
- Cincinnati ranked 58th in weather, which makes sense given its cold winters.
- Orlando ranked 57th in quality of parks, suggesting that while the city offers an abundance of recreational facilities, many of them may not be in the best condition.
Jacobsen: What about long-term investments and cost savings—how do these factor into the rankings?
Lupo: The rankings recognize that accessible recreation yields long-term financial benefits through improved public health. The methodology includes cost-related factors as one of the four dimensions. However, detailed sub-rankings (like exact position in cost or park quality for each city) are not publicly broken out.
Additionally, WalletHub highlights that Buffalo, NY, leads the nation in spending on parks per capita, ranking 11.5 times higher than the lowest-ranked city—a noteworthy data point on municipal investments in public recreation. So you are not putting so much money into one entity while another agency suffers.
Jacobsen: How much of these decisions are intentional, aimed at bringing more recreation into a city? Moreover, how much more are like byproducts—natural outcomes of evolving politics, public needs, and long-term urban development?
Lupo: Well, it is a combination of both. A lot of the cities in the top rankings are what we might call “boom towns”—they have seen rapid growth, especially in the last 30 years or so.
Jacobsen: “Boom towns”? What does that mean in American lingo?
Lupo: “Boom towns” are smaller cities or metro areas that experience sudden population and economic growth. You may have seen it in places like Seattle. About 30–35 years ago, Seattle was more of a mid-sized, modestly bustling city. However, then people started moving there in droves, and now it is a central metropolitan area.
So that is what we mean—once-small cities that experience a population surge due to factors like job opportunities, housing, and lifestyle, and then quickly expand into sprawling metro areas.
To keep that momentum and retain new residents, city leaders tend to focus on quality of life improvements. One of the first things they typically invest in is parks and recreational infrastructure. Making a city more resident-friendly and livable often starts with upgrading these kinds of amenities.
Jacobsen: Now let us look at the other end of the spectrum—the bottom-ranked cities. How does a city end up being so neglectful of recreation? Moreover, even among these lower-ranked cities, what are some universal elements we still see in American recreation?
Lupo: That is a fair question. First, it is worth noting that recreation is still valued in every U.S. city. There is a kind of baseline commitment to public recreation that most municipalities maintain—even if funding is tight.
Now, what is particularly interesting about the bottom five or bottom ten cities is that many of them are suburbs of larger metropolitan areas. For instance:
- Newark and Jersey City, while having their challenges, are right next to New York City. Residents seeking significant recreational or cultural experiences are likely to venture into Manhattan.
- Irving, Texas, is a suburb of Dallas, which is already a well-known recreational hub.
- Chula Vista, just outside San Diego, is in a similar position.
When you are that close to a significant city with world-class attractions, there is often less pressure on the suburb to invest heavily in things like festivals, stadiums, or large park systems, simply because residents already have access to those amenities nearby.
It is not that these suburban cities are neglecting recreation altogether. Still, there tends to be less local investment in large-scale experiences, since people often head into the nearby metro area.
Jacobsen: What about the sources used in this study? Why were they chosen, and why did the rankings come out the way they did this year?
Lupo: Great questions. WalletHub’s analysis pulls from a range of public data sources, including:
- U.S. Census Bureau
- Bureau of Labour Statistics
- Trust for Public Land
- Yelp and TripAdvisor
- National Weather Service
- U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
These sources help provide a broad, data-driven view across the four ranking dimensions: entertainment & recreation facilities, costs, quality of parks, and weather. This year, the methodology stayed largely consistent. Still, changes in population trends, spending, weather events, or economic shifts can all influence how a city ranks year to year.
As cities grow or shift their priorities, their recreation infrastructure either keeps pace—or it does not. That dynamic plays a significant role in how the rankings change over time.
Jacobsen: Let us go back to the sources. You mentioned a few already, but what were the primary ones used for the study?
Lupo: The first one was the U.S. Census Bureau, which we used to gather population and demographic information, especially around shifts in city populations. Then there is the Council for Community and Economic Research, which tracks things like public funding: how much money is being allocated to parks and recreation versus other public needs.
We also used Yelp and TripAdvisor, which are travel and review platforms. They help us evaluate whether a city is considered recreation- and travel-friendly by everyday users. As for Trust for Public Land, that is one you may not be as familiar with—it is a nonprofit that provides data on park access and green space equity across the U.S.
Finally, we incorporated WalletHub’s research and methodology, which complements the public data and helps balance the broader picture.
Jacobsen: And the other question I had was about how you divvied up the overall score. How do you weigh these various categories to get the final composite ranking?
Lupo: Ah, you are talking about weighting—yes. So we score everything out of 100 total points, and each of the four dimensions contributes a share of that:
- Entertainment & Recreational Facilities: This category received the most significant weight because it has the most available metrics. We are talking about everything from the number of hiking trails and fishing spots to amusement parks, pool halls, sports venues, restaurants, food festivals, and recreational centers. People care about variety and access when it comes to recreation, especially during the summer.
- Costs: This was the second most heavily weighted category. Again, because there are numerous sub-metrics here, like:
- Average fitness club fees
- Restaurant meal and food prices
- Alcoholic beverage prices
- Movie ticket costs
- General affordability
- Quality of Parks: This had fewer sub-metrics and therefore received less weight.
- Weather: This had the lowest weight, only 10 points out of 100. That is because it was measured using a single metric: ideal weather conditions, which is relatively subjective and varies less dramatically year-to-year across most U.S. cities.
So it came down to the density of measurable data. Entertainment and cost offered more robust metrics, so they got more weight in the final scoring.
Lupo: No problem at all, Scott—as always.
Jacobsen: Thanks so much. Take care!
Lupo: 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): 2025/08/13
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 insightful conversation, international dating coach and Dating Intelligence Podcast host Christopher Louis speaks with Scott Douglas Jacobsen about the emotional complexity of infidelity. Louis shares expert perspectives on trust, betrayal, attachment styles, and how individuals and couples can heal after cheating occurs. He discusses the psychological and evolutionary dimensions of infidelity, the gendered nuances in how it’s perceived, and why communication and accountability are key to recovery. Through personal anecdotes and client experiences, Louis emphasizes that while cheating often stems from unmet emotional needs, relationships can recover—with honesty, boundaries, and a commitment to change.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, once again, we’re here with the fantastic Christopher Louis. We’re going to talk about a complex subject—one that I think many people have experienced, or at least know someone who has. Infidelity. It’s something that, unfortunately, many people go through. In your practice—one of your businesses—people often come to you during these painful circumstances. So, let’s begin there. What do you define as an “unfortunate circumstance,” and how do you position yourself as a steady, guiding presence for someone working through that process?
Christopher Louis: Hi, Scott. Yes, today’s topic is infidelity, and it’s a big one. It’s almost taboo in many relationships. Some people would rather not know, and others, when they do find out, react with overwhelming emotions—anger, betrayal, sadness. But it’s a reality that many people face, and that’s what we’re going to discuss today.
Jacobsen: Let’s start historically. How was infidelity understood in prior generations—say, in the early 20th century or even before that? Has our understanding changed over time?
Louis: That’s a great question. Historically, infidelity has always been a serious issue, but the way society responds to it has changed. In earlier generations—especially before the 20th century—infidelity was often judged more harshly for women than for men. In many cultures, a man’s unfaithfulness was more socially tolerated. At the same time, a woman’s could lead to severe consequences, including social ostracism or worse. In modern times, we have more gender equity in how infidelity is perceived and handled. However, it’s still a harrowing experience. Whether in the past or now, the emotional impact tends to follow the same core narrative: betrayal, broken trust, and the question of what comes next.
Jacobsen: You mentioned earlier about men and the evolutionary lens some people use to explain infidelity. Can you unpack that a bit?
Louis: Sure. There’s an evolutionary psychology perspective that suggests men may have evolved with a predisposition to seek multiple partners, primarily for reproductive purposes. The basic idea is that, biologically, males can father many children in a short time, whereas females have a longer reproductive investment. This has led some to argue that men may have a natural inclination to seek variety. But we have to be very careful with this. Just because a behaviour has evolutionary roots doesn’t mean it’s justified or acceptable in modern relationships. We’re not lions. We’re human beings with the ability to make choices based on ethics, empathy, and mutual respect. So while biology may explain some impulses, infidelity is much more often about emotional needs not being met—feeling unseen, undervalued, or disconnected from one’s partner.
Jacobsen: So it’s not just about sex—it’s also about validation and emotional connection?
Louis: Exactly. In my experience, one of the most common drivers of infidelity is the desire for validation. When someone feels ignored or emotionally distant in their relationship, attention from someone else can feel intoxicating. It’s not always about physical desire—it’s often about being seen, heard, and appreciated. Of course, that doesn’t excuse the behaviour. But understanding the why helps us address the root of the issue—whether that’s healing the relationship or helping someone move on more healthily.
Jacobsen: So, when someone first discovers infidelity and comes to you, what does that initial phase look like? How do you help them get to a calmer, more reflective state where real conversation can begin?
Louis: The first step is always to allow space for the emotional reaction—whether it’s anger, grief, confusion, or shock. There’s no rushing that. Once they begin to stabilize emotionally, we can start a more thoughtful conversation about what happened, what it means to them, and what they want moving forward. Sometimes that means helping couples have honest discussions about their relationship. Other times, it’s supporting someone individually through the grieving process and into a place of clarity and self-worth.
So, first and foremost, once a person finds out about infidelity, they need to acknowledge their emotions, because they’re going to run hot. You’re going to feel a wide range of emotions: anger, sadness, confusion, and hurt. That emotional response is natural. The most essential thing in the beginning is to recognize and validate those feelings. You need to understand why you’re feeling the way you are before you’re able to return to your partner and have a mature, communicative conversation about the “how” and the “why” of what happened.
The next step is to decide what you want to do moving forward. Consider your options. Do you want to try to repair the relationship, or do you feel it’s best to move on? Regardless of what you choose, a clear conversation needs to happen with your partner. You’ll need to talk openly about what happened, how it happened, and why it happened, to determine the path forward.
A key part of that process is directly addressing the infidelity. Whether you found out by accident, caught them in the act, or heard it from someone else, the reality is—you’ll have to confront your partner. And when you do, you have to try to remain calm, speak clearly, and express your feelings of hurt and betrayal constructively.
Now here’s the caveat: your partner may be the wild card in this situation. You don’t know how they’ll respond, especially if they were caught unexpectedly or if it came through hearsay. Their emotional reaction might vary, and it can influence how the conversation goes.
One thing I often say—especially when I’m speaking with women—is this: if a man cheats and gives you a story, whether it’s true or not, he will usually stick to that story. That’s a defence mechanism. So it becomes your responsibility to decide: do you believe that story? And the way to answer that is not just based on the words themselves, but on his behaviour. Look at how he communicates—his body language, tone, and emotional presence. Does it align with what he’s saying?
I coach my clients to pay attention to that alignment. If your partner is sincere, the story and the behaviour will generally match. If not, there may be more to uncover. The goal is not to attack, but to seek clarity so that you can make informed decisions.
And finally, let’s not overlook the emotional impact on the person who’s been cheated on. Infidelity isn’t just a betrayal of trust—it’s a direct hit to that person’s dignity and sense of self-worth. It can shake their identity, their confidence, and their belief in love or loyalty. Part of the healing process must include rebuilding that self-respect and reaffirming one’s value, regardless of the outcome of the relationship.
Jacobsen: How do you recommend individuals, who are in that moment, maintain their dignity when having what may be a very confrontational conversation with the partner who cheated?
Louis: As far as dignity goes, I believe it becomes a more central issue when cheating happens more than once, say, a second or third time. That’s when dignity comes into play. The first time it happens, people often try to assess whether it was a genuine mistake. Sometimes, couples can move forward, rebuild trust, and even come out stronger than before—provided both parties are committed to that process.
But when it happens repeatedly, some individuals may begin to lose themselves in the relationship. They might give their partner the benefit of the doubt, not because they genuinely believe them, but because they want to avoid conflict or deny the reality of the betrayal. That’s when dependency—sometimes even emotional codependency—can creep in. You end up prioritizing the relationship over your self-worth, telling yourself, “I just don’t want this to happen again.” Still, in the process, you’re being walked over.
So yes, dignity matters a lot—not just in the case of infidelity, but also in other unhealthy relationship dynamics. Whether it’s emotional manipulation, constant arguing, controlling behaviour, or abuse, it’s all part of the same question: Where is your dignity in this relationship?
At some point, you have to put your foot down and ask yourself: Do I want to keep accepting this behaviour? That’s where reclaiming dignity begins. It’s about drawing boundaries, recognizing patterns, and honouring your own emotional and psychological needs.
Now, when it comes to cheating specifically, before focusing solely on dignity, the first step is to have a calm and honest conversation. Try to understand why the person did what they did. But—and this is crucial—do not blame yourself. Never say, “Well, I pushed you to do this,” or “This is my fault because I wasn’t enough.” That’s simply not true.
If someone chooses to cheat, that’s their decision. It’s not justified by unmet needs or a lack of attention. If there was a problem in the relationship, the mature response is to communicate, not to betray your partner.
If your partner says something like, “You weren’t giving me enough attention,” or “I felt neglected,” that’s not an excuse. If they truly felt that way, they should have had an open conversation with you: “I feel disconnected,” or “We haven’t been spending enough time together,” or “I miss us.” Those are valid concerns, but they should be communicated, not acted out through infidelity.
These are valid reasons to have a conversation about fixing things before going out and seeking something else on the side. So first and foremost, communication is key. It’s about addressing what’s going on in the relationship before it reaches the point of infidelity.
Now, if it does reach that point—if you discover your partner has cheated—what I often tell people, especially women, is this: you need to ask your partner specific direct questions to help determine whether they’re telling the truth. Because unless the person comes out and says, “Yes, you caught me. I did cheat. I’m sorry,”—which does happen, but not often—there’s a good chance they’ll deny it. I’d say in about 75% of cases, they’ll try to deflect or deny. They might say things like, “I don’t know what you’re talking about,” or “I promise I didn’t do that,” even if they did.
Jacobsen: So, how often would you say people take accountability when they’ve cheated?
Louis: It depends a lot on the level of communication in the relationship. In couples who don’t communicate well—where they’re living almost parallel lives without emotional intimacy—accountability is rare. If there’s a controlling partner involved, that person might try to dominate the conversation or manipulate the situation, whether they’ve cheated or not. In those cases, even being caught red-handed might not lead to actual ownership or remorse.
Jacobsen: Are there patterns that repeat among people who cheat?
Louis: Yes. I’ll be honest—I’ve been there myself. I had a history of cheating when I was younger. I’m not proud of it, but I’ve learned from it. And yes, people often say, “Once a cheater, always a cheater.” That’s the saying, right?
But here’s what changed for me. About 15 years ago, I was dating a woman for around six months. Things were okay, but then I met someone else who made me stop and think. I realized I liked this new person, and instead of repeating old patterns, I chose to do something different.
I went to the woman I was dating and told her the truth. I said, “I think I’ve met someone I might want to pursue a relationship with. I need to end this respectfully instead of cheating on you.” She was hurt, of course, but she appreciated the honesty. We ended things, and I started dating the new person.
Jacobsen: Wow.
Louis: The important thing is this: people can change. Growth is possible. But it starts with self-awareness, accountability, and the willingness to break harmful patterns before they do more damage.
Yeah. So that woman didn’t become my wife—but here’s the funny part, Scott. Seventeen years later, I’m still connected to that chapter of my life. I ended up marrying the other woman, and we had a great marriage. We communicated very well, we built a strong relationship, and even though we eventually separated, it was a very respectful and mutual breakup. She’s still my best friend. She’s the mother of my kids. We co-parent and get along well.
But here’s where it gets interesting—the woman I broke up with back then, before I started dating my now ex-wife? We reconnected five months after my separation. We’ve now been together for eight years.
So the woman I once thought wasn’t right for me—where I made the mature decision not to cheat, to break up respectfully because I thought I’d met someone else—ended up becoming the person I’m with today. Back then, we just weren’t ready. Our timing was off. And now, years later, our paths crossed again, and it turns out we’re perfectly aligned.
It’s a funny story, but it taught me something huge: that honesty and communication do work. That moment was a turning point for me. From that point on, I decided that if I ever started to feel tempted or disconnected again, I’d bring it up before anything unhealthy could happen.
And I still do that. Whenever I feel those familiar signs—like I’m starting to look around, starting to get restless—I say it. I tell my partner, “Look, I’m starting to feel something. I’m starting to drift mentally.” And you know what? They usually respond with, “Okay, let’s talk about it.” And we do. I’ll say, “I feel like I’m not getting enough attention,” or “We haven’t had enough quality time,” or “You’ve been busy and we haven’t connected.”
Once we talk it through, those feelings usually calm right back down. I feel grounded again. The temptation fades. All it took was an honest conversation.
Especially for men, that’s often what it comes down to—we don’t feel seen. And that, hands down, is probably the number one reason why men cheat. We’re craving attention or emotional connection, and instead of expressing that, some of us act out.
Jacobsen: What about the idea that men and women perceive different actions as cheating? Is there a difference in how they define infidelity?
Louis: That’s a great point. You’re right—there often is a difference in perception between genders. For example, one partner might think, “I was just texting someone,” or, “It was only emotional,” and not consider it cheating, while the other partner does. So yes, there’s often a disconnect in how cheating is defined.
Gender can play a role in that. Some studies suggest that men may be more likely to view physical acts as cheating. At the same time, women may be more impacted by emotional connection. That’s not universal, of course, but it’s a common trend.
That’s why, from the start of any relationship, it’s crucial to define boundaries clearly. What does cheating look like to you? What are the emotional or behavioural limits that, if crossed, would damage trust? Without that clarity, couples often find themselves in situations where one person feels betrayed. At the same time, the other doesn’t even realize they’ve crossed a line.
Well, you know, cheating means different things to different people. For some men, for example—and forgive me for generalizing here—some insecurities come into play. A lot depends on the dynamics of the relationship.
Let’s say a man identifies as more dominant or protective—he might interpret certain behaviours as cheating, even if they’re relatively innocent. For instance, if his partner is talking to another man for what he considers “too long,” or gives someone a hug that lasts just a little longer than usual, he might perceive that as a form of betrayal. In his mind, it might not be physical cheating. However, it’s still seen as emotional disloyalty or disrespect—and sometimes, that carries the same weight.
On the other hand, a woman might react strongly if her partner is caught looking at another woman or showing attention elsewhere. Again, it’s not always about the act itself—it’s about the intent, the context, and the emotional boundary. So there’s this whole spectrum of what’s considered cheating, and it varies based on personal insecurities, trust levels, and the agreement within the relationship.
I’m on the opposite end of the spectrum. My partner and I are very secure in our relationship. I can sit next to a woman, hug her, have a long conversation, and there’s no jealousy or suspicion—because we’ve built a foundation of trust. But that kind of security takes time, transparency, and mutual respect to develop.
Now, when it comes to why people cheat, again, the core reason usually comes down to not getting enough attention or emotional fulfillment. It’s often about the need for validation. Men tend to cheat more for physical reasons, while women are usually drawn into emotional connections. That’s not a strict rule, but it’s a familiar pattern. A woman may cheat after developing a deeper emotional bond with someone who makes her feel heard or understood—something she might not be getting at home.
Jacobsen: How often do people decide to stay and work things out after infidelity? Let’s start with the one-time case, where it’s seen as an error, followed by forgiveness and an attempt to reconcile.
Louis: In those cases—especially in long-term relationships—it’s much more common to try to work things out. Suppose the relationship has a solid foundation, and the cheating was a one-off. In that case, many couples do go through a reconciliation process. Now, the dynamic is very different if the relationship is new—say, less than six months in—and they haven’t even fully defined what the relationship is. That’s a gray area.
But let’s focus on long-term relationships. When it’s a one-time mistake, what I always tell people—particularly women—is this: if a man is genuinely sorry, you’ll see it not just in his words but in his behaviour. The attention he gives you will feel real. He won’t just say he’s sorry—he’ll show it in how he re-engages with you, how he listens, how present he is.
Be cautious, however. Some people respond to guilt by going overboard—they start “love bombing,” constantly showering affection or gifts in an almost artificial way. That can feel overwhelming and performative. A truly remorseful person tends to be more grounded. They apologize, yes, but they also take responsibility and change their behaviour without turning it into a performance.
When someone cheats and wants to repair the relationship, they must show up repeatedly. Because at that point, trust has been broken. It doesn’t matter if it was one time or ten times—trust is lost. And the only way to rebuild it is by consistently demonstrating that you’re present, accountable, and committed to rebuilding what was damaged.
That means being more attentive, more caring, more honest, and more communicative. It’s not about grand gestures—it’sabout consistency over time. Some women will say, “Well, he’s trying, but I still don’t believe him.” And in those cases, I sometimes say—that might be on you now.
What I mean by that is this: if you’ve decided to forgive your partner and stay in the relationship. However, you’re still holding the betrayal over their head every day. It’s no longer just about what they did—it becomes about how you’re choosing to handle it.
You always have a choice. If you can’t forgive or you’re not ready, that’s okay. But then, be honest. Say, “I need time. I’mnot ready to move forward yet.” Maybe you need space. Perhaps a break is necessary. But don’t say “I forgive you” and then continue punishing your partner emotionally for the following year. That’s not healing—it’s resentment.
And yes, healing takes time. If it’s been a few weeks or even a couple of months and you’re still working through it—that’s completely normal. In that case, your partner should ask, “What do you need to know? What questions do youhave?” That’s part of the process.
But if it’s been a year, and you’re still using the cheating as a reason to withhold affection or intimacy, saying things like, “I can’t have sex with you because of what happened a year ago.” You need to take a deeper look inward. At that point, therapy might be necessary—either as a couple or individually—because the relationship isn’t moving forward. And the reality is: if you haven’t truly forgiven them, you’ll likely never fully trust them again.
Jacobsen: What do you think is the bigger, more profound message about infidelity? What does it mean to us? Why does it impact us so profoundly? What’s the invisible golden thread that gets broken?
Louis: At its core, infidelity breaks the most sacred part of a relationship: trust. That’s the foundation. You’ve made a commitment—spoken or unspoken—that we’re in this together, that I choose you, and you choose me. When someone steps outside of that without mutual agreement—unless you’re in an open relationship and it’s discussed—it’s a breach of that bond.
It’s not just about sex. It’s about the emotional safety, the loyalty, and the deep understanding that your heart is safe with another person. When that’s violated, it creates emotional chaos. That “golden thread,” as you called it, is the trust that ties everything else together. Once it’s broken, everything else starts to unravel unless both people are committed to doing the hard work of repairing it.
Right. If you’ve communicated that you’re in a monogamous relationship, then stepping outside of that without consent is cheating. Now, if you’ve agreed on something different—like polyamory, an open relationship, or a solo partnership—that’s a different conversation entirely. But suppose there’s been no such discussion, and both people believe they’re exclusive. In that case, any breach of that is a serious violation of trust.
And yes, those conversations can be difficult. Asking, “What are we?” or, “Are we exclusive?” can feel awkward, but they’re necessary. If both partners say, “I only want to be with you,” then the expectation is set. And maintaining that commitment is hard work. It takes effort, communication, and most importantly, trust.
Trust is what allows you to feel safe even when you’re not together 24/7. If your partner goes out with friends or spends time apart from you, that should be okay, because you trust who they are and how they show up in the relationship. That’s a mature and healthy dynamic. It’s not about control—it’s about confidence, mutual respect, and independence within a secure bond.
Jacobsen: What about people who are serial cheaters? Or cases where forgiveness just really isn’t on the table anymore?
Louis: You mean when someone says up front, “If you ever cheat on me, I’m gone,” and then the partner cheats anyway?
Jacobsen: They’ve communicated it clearly in advance, and now that boundary has been crossed.
Louis: If someone has communicated their boundary, “Cheating is a dealbreaker. If it happens, I’m out,”—then I think it’s entirely fair for them to walk away without reconsideration. That expectation was made clear. There should be no “but what if…” or “can’t we talk about it?” If you knew the terms and still violated them, then you also accept the consequences.
Now, in those cases, if someone cheats and the other person walks, there’s no blame to place. That person protected their boundary, and I respect that.
But then there’s another kind of pattern—the serial cheater. Someone who keeps betraying trust over and over again. In those relationships, I often find that the partner being cheated on is either looking the other way or trapped in a cycle of emotional insecurity.
And let’s be honest: that’s not love—it’s dysfunction. It usually comes down to attachment style. Someone who tolerates repeated betrayal often has an anxious or insecure attachment, where their fear of abandonment outweighs their sense of self-worth. That dynamic allows the serial cheater to continue manipulating or using them, and it becomes a toxic cycle.
So in those cases, the healing doesn’t just need to happen for the cheater—it needs to happen for the person staying. They need to ask themselves: “Why am I still accepting this?” Because cheating isn’t just about sex—it’s about respect, boundaries, and emotional safety.
When we’re talking about insecure attachment, it’s often rooted in either anxious or fearful-avoidant styles. These individuals tend to feel deeply insecure in their relationships. They usually let their partner take control and become more dominant. They become the “yes ma’am” or “yes sir” type—constantly trying to please, often at the cost of their self-respect and boundaries.
Jacobsen: What about the opposite case? When forgiveness happens easily, even after cheating? Some people seem to glaze over it, move on quickly, and don’t seem deeply affected. How do you make sense of that?
Louis: That’s a great question. I had a client once…” [Laughing] But let’s be honest—I’ll just own it.
I’ve had situations in the past where I was in relationships with women who came to me honestly and admitted, “I cheated on you.” They came home, told me directly, and owned up to it. In those cases, I took a deep breath and said, “Okay, let’s have a conversation.” And after we talked about it, I forgave them. They never did it again.
Why? Because it was a one-off mistake. And we all make mistakes. What stood out to me was that they didn’t try to hide it, they didn’t let it fester. They came to me immediately. That kind of honesty goes a long way in rebuilding trust.
Now, I had always told my partners from the beginning, “If something ever happens, just come to me. I won’t be a hypocrite. I’ll hear you out before I make any decisions.” And in both of those cases, we had open, honest conversations, and we continued the relationships for years afterward, with no further issues. I never held it over them, never judged them, never brought it up again.
So yes, forgiveness can happen quickly—if you’re in a relationship built on strong communication, emotional maturity, and mutual respect. In those cases, it’s less about the act itself and more about the response. Did they take accountability? Were they honest? Did they show remorse? Suppose all those are present, and you feel the foundation is still solid. In that case, it’s possible to forgive, move forward, and never look back.
That’s the difference. Forgiveness becomes easier when the relationship context supports it. When there’s emotional intelligence, transparency, and authentic connection, even a difficult moment like infidelity doesn’t have to be the end. It can be a turning point—if both people are willing to grow from it.
Because, once again, everyone makes mistakes.
Jacobsen: But do you notice similar patterns when comparing heterosexual couples to gay couples—or, say, partnerships that involve more than two people, like polyamorous relationships or “throuples”? Do those dynamics follow similar patterns? Or do entirely new interactions arise?
Louis: That’s an excellent question. And the answer is yes and no. Some patterns carry over across relationship structures, especially when it comes to core issues like trust, communication, and boundaries. But the dynamics can shift depending on the relationship model.
For example, I had a couple of friends in a long-term open relationship—more specifically, they were in a throuple-style setup. They were together for nine years, and they had a standing agreement that they could engage with a third person together, whether in a threesome or another shared arrangement. It worked for them because it was mutual, clearly communicated, and consensual.
But here’s what happened. The husband eventually began seeing one of those third partners on his own, without telling his wife. And that broke the agreement. The wife—whom I know well—was clear from day one: “We do this together, or not at all.” When he stepped outside the agreement and began a side relationship independently, she saw it as a betrayal, and she filed for divorce.
And that’s the key takeaway: cheating isn’t about the act itself—it’s about violating agreed-upon boundaries. Whether the relationship is monogamous, polyamorous, or somewhere in between, the golden rule is the same: honour the agreements you’ve made. Once someone crosses that line, it becomes about broken trust, not just broken rules.
Jacobsen: What about people who’ve never experienced infidelity themselves? What assumptions do they tend to make—about what it is, what it means, or what causes it—that are just totally off?
Louis: Great question. There are many myths around infidelity, especially among people who’ve never gone through it firsthand. One of the biggest misconceptions is that infidelity is always about sex. That’s just not true. More often than not, cheating is about emotional disconnection, unmet needs, or the search for validation.
Another common myth is that “if someone cheats, it means they don’t love their partner.” Again, not always true. People are complicated. Some people cheat despite loving their partner. It doesn’t make it okay, but the root cause isn’t always a lack of love—it’s often a lack of communication, attention, or self-awareness.
Some assume that men cheat more than women, but that’s also not as clear-cut anymore. Women cheat, too—and often for different reasons. While men tend to cheat more for physical or opportunistic reasons, women are more likely to cheat in response to emotional neglect. Again, these are generalizations, but they challenge outdated assumptions.
Finally, many people believe that once a cheater, always a cheater. That’s a tricky one. Yes, some people are repeat offenders—but others learn, grow, and genuinely never repeat that mistake. It depends on their level of self-reflection and willingness to do the work.
So yeah, there’s much misunderstanding about what cheating means. It’s not always about lust. It’s not always about falling out of love. It’s often about a deeper emotional fracture—one that many people don’t even realize exists until it’s too late.
Well, first and foremost, when someone hears about cheating—whether it’s in the news, in a friend’s relationship, or just hypothetically, the first reaction is almost always the same: “That person’s a liar,” or “Once a cheater, always a cheater.” There’s a rush to judgment, without really trying to understand the full context or circumstances.
For those who haven’t experienced it themselves, it’s easy to say, “If that ever happened to me, I’d be out. No questions asked. That person would be dead to me.” But the reality is, when it happens to you, it’s very different. There’s history. There are emotions. There’s love, investment, and time. Suddenly, it’s not such a simple decision anymore.
Now, of course, if someone has been cheated on in the past, and they tell a new partner, “If you ever cheat on me, I will walk out, no questions asked,” then that’s a boundary—and that boundary needs to be respected. That’s a different scenario. But many people who’ve never gone through it firsthand only see infidelity in black-and-white terms.
For example, if you ask someone, “What would you do if your partner cheated on you?” they almost always jump to the extreme: “I’d leave.” Very few people say, “I would take a step back, listen to what they have to say, and try to understand why it happened.”
To be clear, I never suggest that the person who was cheated on is to blame. Cheating is a personal choice. But in some cases—some, not all—there’s a breakdown in the relationship that both people contributed to. That doesn’t justify the cheating, but it can help explain why it happened. And if healing is going to take place, both partners need to understand what was broken and how to repair it.
Jacobsen: Not necessarily about assigning blame—like, “It’s his fault” or “her fault”—but recognizing it as a collective failure in the relationship dynamic?
Louis: You don’t need to point fingers. But if you’re going to try to move forward, you have to look honestly at the whole picture. Both people have to be willing to ask hard questions, be vulnerable, and take accountability for the state of the relationship leading up to the infidelity.
Jacobsen: Christopher, thank you very much for your time and expertise again today. I’ll be in touch—hopefully tonight, or within a day—with the transcript for your review. And as always, we’ll keep the conversation going.
Louis: Thank you, Scott. Always a pleasure. Have a wonderful day—and get some rest, my friend.
Jacobsen: Thank you. Bye-bye.
Louis: 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): 2025/08/12
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 wide-ranging conversation, Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Irina Tsukerman discuss the resignation of Fed Governor Adriana Kugler, the firing of BLS head Erika McEntarfer, and the fallout from politically driven economic decisions. She critiques Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order, details the humanitarian crisis in Sudan, and unpacks escalating tensions in Gaza and Ukraine. Tsukerman also warns of increasing politicization in public institutions and media cuts, providing nuanced, Constitution-based insights into America’s evolving legal and geopolitical landscape.
Interview conducted August 1.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Once again, welcome to Everywhere Insiders, joined by the wonderful Irina Tsukerman. Today we are covering topics ranging from Writers’ Day through to developments on August 1, 2025.
Let’s start with the major news: Federal Reserve Governor Adriana Kugler has submitted her resignation, effective August 8, 2025.
Though some outlets loosely frame this as a firing, it is officially a resignation. That said, early departures from such positions often carry political weight, especially when they create opportunities for new appointments. In this case, former President Trump has already announced plans to name a temporary replacement within days to serve out the remainder of Kugler’s term.
Irina Tsukerman: This creates a rare and politically significant opportunity. Trump now has the chance to shape the Fed before Jerome Powell’s term as Chair ends in May 2026. The resignation of a sitting governor—especially in a contentious political environment—allows the administration to install someone more aligned with its policy agenda.
Jacobsen: And that brings us to another related shake-up. The head of the Bureau of Labour Statistics, Erika McEntarfer, was fired after the agency released a revised jobs report showing 258,000 fewer jobs than initially reported. While such revisions are routine and part of statistical transparency, the dismissal appears tied to political backlash.
Tsukerman: Precisely. This is troubling from an institutional perspective. When independent officials are dismissed following routine reporting corrections, it signals a politicization of data. That undermines the credibility of economic institutions and has long-term consequences for investor confidence and public trust.
Jacobsen: The broader takeaway from this labour report is that it reflects more than a typical economic downturn. This is not the result of a global shock or natural cycle—it’s largely self-inflicted. The contraction is tied to domestic policy decisions, particularly aggressive tariffs and regulatory burdens that have hit small and medium-sized businesses the hardest.
Tsukerman: That’s right. We’re seeing job losses not only in federal positions—where there have been sweeping layoffs—but also across private and related industries. Small and mid-sized companies, already operating on thin margins, are closing or downsizing. These losses were preventable. That’s what makes this report particularly concerning.
Jacobsen: So, to summarize:
- Adriana Kugler has resigned, allowing Trump to make a key appointment to the Federal Reserve.
- Erika McEntarfer was fired, seemingly in response to a routine data revision.
- The latest labour report points not to an external crisis, but to internal policy failures—especially those affecting American businesses.
Tsukerman: And with these institutional changes, we could be witnessing a significant reshaping of economic governance under this administration—one that prioritizes loyalty over technical expertise.
So, what we’re seeing now is the result of a cycle that Trump himself initiated. It began with funding cuts to universities, which were then forced to lay off staff. That was followed by the imposition of tariffs, which made it more expensive to operate import-export businesses. But the impact didn’t stop there. Even companies not directly involved in international trade have been affected, as they rely on various goods and materials that have become more costly.
That’s what many people forget—these policies have ripple effects across the entire economy. On top of that, there’salready a general expectation of slower economic growth, which naturally results in fewer job openings. Employers are responding with caution, scaling back hiring plans and operating under more conservative forecasts.
Jacobsen: And there’s also Trump’s escalating conflict with his political opponents, law firms, and entire sectors of the economy, which adds another layer of economic uncertainty.
Tsukerman: Exactly. These confrontations are contributing to an unstable business climate. The outcomes we’re seeing shouldn’t surprise anyone. The only reason some are shocked is that Trump, along with his allies, has been consistently exaggerating or misrepresenting economic conditions.
What’s more concerning is that even some respected experts echoed his narrative, claiming, for instance, that tariffs would have no real economic impact. That misled the public. So now, when the predicted consequences materialize, people feel blindsided. But this situation has played out exactly as many independent analysts warned it would.
Jacobsen: Speaking of geopolitical tensions, let’s turn to the Russia-Ukraine situation. There were provocative statements recently from Russian sources, and reports that Trump ordered nuclear submarines to be repositioned. What’s the story there?
Tsukerman: It’s more about optics than action. Trump has been making increasingly aggressive statements toward Russia. He hasn’t taken any concrete military steps. Still, he has ordered U.S. nuclear submarines to reposition—a symbolic move intended to project strength and deterrence.
This follows another horrifying attack in Ukraine, where over 100 drones were launched by the Kremlin, striking civilian areas—one particularly tragic incident involved eight children killed in a single strike. Images of parents holding unconscious or dead children have sparked outrage, not only internationally, but even within parts of the U.S. Congress.
Jacobsen: Including among Republicans?
Tsukerman: Yes, even some Republicans who were previously more MAGA-aligned or sympathetic to Russia have begun expressing outrage. Putin’s brazenness, the rising civilian death toll, and ongoing threats toward NATO and the United States are shifting some of those positions.
As for Trump, his movement of nuclear submarines serves a dual purpose. It reassures his base that he’s a strong leader who won’t be humiliated by Russian aggression. But at the same time, it allows him to appear strong without actually doing anything that would contradict his longstanding position of avoiding confrontation with Russia.
Jacobsen: So it’s posturing?
Tsukerman: Precisely. It’s strategic signalling—projecting deterrence without engaging. He’s essentially saying, “We’re ready to respond if needed,” while ensuring that he doesn’t escalate the conflict. It’s a calculated move meant more for domestic optics than for changing the situation on the ground.
So far, Trump has not initiated any concrete economic or military action against Russia. There’s no indication that he will—unless there’s a direct attack on U.S. interests. So, this recent move—repositioning nuclear submarines—is, in reality, a relatively minor escalation. Frankly, it’s something that should have been done a long time ago.
But it’s also not particularly meaningful. Despite all the rhetoric—threats of sanctions, secondary tariffs, and punitive measures against Russian products—Russia continues to benefit from the time window it has essentially been granted. And during that time, they continue attacking civilians. They’re also continuing to receive weapons components from China and North Korea and conducting trade with several other countries.
There’s nothing substantial being done to accelerate the collapse of Russia’s war economy.
Jacobsen: And shifting focus slightly—on the domestic front—there’s renewed attention on anti-immigration rhetoric. One issue that’s come up again is birthright citizenship. I’ve seen headlines about it, including an executive order from Trump aiming to restrict it, even as a second federal appeals court has declared such restrictions unconstitutional.
This is your legal wheelhouse—where are we in the process? Why is this being blocked? And what’s the rationale behind this executive action?
Tsukerman: To clarify, birthright citizenship is enshrined in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It was adopted in 1868 and grants automatic citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States,” regardless of the immigration status of their parents. Legally, this is not something that can be overturned by executive order—it would require a constitutional amendment or a Supreme Court reversal, neither of which has occurred.
The federal courts have repeatedly blocked attempts to restrict this right because they violate the Constitution. Trump’s proposals are largely political messaging. He’s trying to appeal to specific segments of his base, despite the clear legal barriers.
Jacobsen: What’s the historical foundation of birthright citizenship?
Tsukerman: Birthright citizenship is not just a right—it was essential to the founding and development of the United States. When the country was first established, there was no modern immigration system. Virtually everyone who came here did so without today’s legal procedures, because those procedures didn’t exist.
If their children had not been considered Americans, there wouldn’t have been a population to build and sustain the country. The U.S. needed people—families who were willing to stay, work the land, and take the political and personal risks of declaring independence from Britain.
Birthright citizenship ensured their children would have legal protection, not face deportation, and could inherit and build a future in the newly founded country.
Jacobsen: So the argument is both legal and historical?
Tsukerman: Absolutely. It’s both practical and rooted in constitutional law. The framers of the 14th Amendment were very clear about this: if you’re born here, you’re a citizen. The idea of “illegal immigration” as we know it didn’t even exist at the time. People arrived, stayed, and helped populate the land.
Immigration restrictions came much later, primarily in the 19th and 20th centuries, when procedures were introduced to prevent the spread of disease, criminal elements, or individuals considered threats to public safety. But birthright citizenship has remained a cornerstone of how the U.S. grows and integrates its population.
Without it, there would have been no incentive for many to remain in the U.S. during its most difficult years, especially when the country was broke, heavily indebted, and still struggling to establish basic institutions. It was a mechanism to ensure stability, continuity, and growth.
Jacobsen: And now it’s being rechallenged in court.
Tsukerman: Yes, and it’s being blocked—correctly—by the judiciary. Attempts to remove birthright citizenship by executive order are legally invalid. The courts are upholding the Constitution. It’s one of those rare instances where the legal system is doing precisely what it was designed to do: protect foundational rights from political overreach.
This is what so many people who are now crying about so-called “anchor babies” fail to understand. Without birthright citizenship—without those very “anchor babies”—none of us would be here. There would be no United States as we know it.
Now, of course, it’s reasonable to say we should have processes to ensure that individuals with serious criminal records or evil intent aren’t allowed to remain here. That’s a fair point. But children born on U.S. soil do not have criminal records—they are not culpable for their parents’ actions.
The argument that birthright citizenship incentivizes illegal immigration misses the mark, especially when you consider that this is precisely how the country was founded. Birthright citizenship is foundational to the American national identity. It’s not a loophole—it’s a cornerstone. It’s what made the United States possible, and it’s relatively unique compared to many other countries because of how our history unfolded.
People who misunderstand this need to go back and crack open a U.S. history textbook—many of them, I suspect, for the first time—and learn how this nation was formed.
Jacobsen: And some of the loudest voices in this debate are, ironically, descendants of relatively recent immigrants.
Tsukerman: Exactly. Many of the same individuals who are now calling for restrictions would not even be here if the standards they propose today were applied to their own families. Many early Americans arrived in the New World as indentured servants.
If we applied their logic retroactively, why should the children of indentured servants—who were bound by contract—have been granted citizenship? By that logic, they should have gone back once their service ended. But of course, that’s absurd, and it underscores the flawed reasoning behind the current rhetoric.
So it’s no surprise that two federal courts have already blocked Trump’s proposed restriction on birthright citizenship. Yes, sometimes you get split circuit decisions, and then it may go to the Supreme Court. I’m not certain whether this case will ultimately make it that far. But if it does, I strongly suspect the Court will strike it down.
The proposal is a blatant attempt to undercut the constitutional foundation of American citizenship—and it’s unlikely to survive legal scrutiny in its current form.
Jacobsen: Let’s pivot to public media. There’s been a significant funding cut that’s drawing attention, especially around the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). Reports suggest it’s either shutting down or projected to shut down following a $9 billion funding cut to public media in general.
Of that, $1.1 billion was explicitly earmarked for CPB, which, in turn, distributes funding to NPR and PBS. This was part of a long-term funding plan—stretched over two years—but it’s been abruptly eliminated by the Republican-controlled House. What are your thoughts on this move? Have you seen any reactions from NPR or PBS yet?
Tsukerman: This is a significant blow to independent, publicly funded journalism and educational programming. CPB is a nonprofit organization that plays a crucial role in ensuring that Americans—especially those in rural or underserved communities—have access to non-commercial, educational media.
The elimination of $1.1 billion in CPB funding is part of a broader trend we’re seeing: attacks on institutions that provide fact-based, publicly accountable information. When funding for public broadcasting disappears, it’s not just about NPR and PBS losing resources—it’s about communities losing access to trusted reporting, children’s educational programs, arts programming, and local journalism.
Politically, this isn’t just about budget priorities. It reflects an ideological shift away from public goods and toward privatization or politicization of information channels. I haven’t seen formal statements yet from NPR or PBS, but I expect strong public responses. This decision directly threatens their ability to operate, especially in smaller markets.
Jacobsen: And, with the collapse of local news outlets, losing CPB-backed stations could widen the information gap.
Tsukerman: Absolutely. These cuts don’t just affect the coasts or major cities—they hit the heartland. And that’s precisely where independent, nonpartisan media is often most needed. If anything, this move will make it harder for many Americans to stay informed.
First of all, this has been in the works for quite some time. We knew it was coming—it’s been discussed for months, essentially since the start of Trump’s second term. That said, even with the warning signs, it was still a shock for many, especially those who lost their jobs.
What’s particularly troubling is how many MAGA and MAGA-adjacent commentators celebrated the funding cuts. They argued that PBS and NPR were promoting radical left-wing content. But what they fail to recognize is that PBS and NPR were only a small part of what the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) funded.
The vast majority of CPB’s support went to local media outlets across the country, particularly in rural or underserved areas where commercial media outlets simply don’t exist. Without CPB, these communities lose access not only to national news but also to vital local coverage: weather updates, emergency alerts, public health announcements, and community events. The loss is much broader than people realize.
Jacobsen: So it’s more about dismantling an infrastructure than just removing two high-profile names.
Tsukerman: People saw the funding as symbolic because of NPR and PBS. But the real impact is structural, affecting basic media access for millions. Now, the only hope for these regions is private funding, which introduces its problems. Private funding can come with editorial strings attached, and it may not even come at all, especially in economically depressed or sparsely populated regions.
This decision could effectively silence entire communities. They won’t have any media coverage—no public voice. And there’s no guarantee that private media will step in, or that if they do, they will be neutral.
Jacobsen: Couldn’t the administration have taken a more measured approach—reforming CPB instead of cutting it?
Tsukerman: Absolutely. If the concern was that CPB programming leaned too far left—particularly in NPR or PBS content—the administration had plenty of legal authority to restructure CPB. The president could have replaced leadership, established new oversight protocols, and reoriented its mission to reflect the administration’s priorities better. That would have been a valid and legal approach.
Yes, some of the coverage in recent years leaned more progressive, but that doesn’t mean the entire operation had no value. Much of the programming was non-political: cultural documentaries, educational children’s shows, and arts coverage. Eliminating all of that, rather than reforming it, is a missed opportunity—not only to preserve public service media but to use it to communicate this administration’s message more effectively.
Jacobsen: All right. In the last couple of minutes, let’s turn to Colombia. Former President Álvaro Uribe has been sentenced to 12 years of post-arrest supervision for abuse of process and bribery of a public official. This stems from a witness tampering case that has gone on for over 13 years. The sentencing came from Judge Sandra Liliana Heredia. Uribe continues to maintain his innocence. Is this unusual by global political standards?
Tsukerman: Not at all. This fits the global pattern of political corruption cases, especially involving former heads of state. It’s not unique to Colombia, nor is it unique to the right or left politically. In this case, the allegations involve bribery, abuse of process, and potential links to right-wing paramilitary groups.
There’s a long history in Colombia of murky relationships between political elites and armed groups, and many have criticized the government’s handling of peace negotiations and transitional justice.
Jacobsen: So it’s part of a broader pattern?
Tsukerman: Yes. Whether or not Uribe is guilty, the larger issue is systemic. It reflects deeper tensions in Colombian society around accountability, justice, and the role of political power. It also highlights how long such cases can take—this one dragged on for more than a decade. The fact that a conviction happened at all is significant. It signals that the judicial system, despite its flaws, is still able to function under extreme political pressure.
Some critics argue that the Colombian government has made questionable deals with various militant groups. The core question, however, isn’t whether controversial negotiations occurred—those happen in nearly every conflict resolution context—but whether there has been a consistent standard applied to Uribe compared to others.
In other words, is Uribe being singled out, or is the current administration pursuing him fairly and impartially under the law? That’s where the controversy lies—not so much in the charges themselves, but in how the current government is handling the prosecution and whether it can be trusted to enforce justice without political motivation.
Jacobsen: Let’s break down the background. This whole case stems from a complaint Uribe himself filed in 2012, correct?
Tsukerman: Yes. Back in 2012, Álvaro Uribe filed a complaint against Senator Iván Cepeda, accusing him of manipulating witnesses. But that move backfired. The investigation revealed evidence implicating Uribe himself in attempts to coerce or manipulate incarcerated paramilitary witnesses, effectively turning the tables.
This case became Colombia’s so-called “trial of the century,” not only because of its duration—13 years—but because it marked the first time a former president in Colombia was convicted and sentenced for criminal offences.
Jacobsen: And the political reaction has been intense.
Tsukerman: Very. Uribe’s supporters—including his party, Democratic Center—have decried the verdict as judicial persecution, claiming the judiciary is politically weaponized. U.S. figures like Senator Marco Rubio and even the Secretary of State have expressed support for Uribe, adding international pressure.
On the other hand, Colombian leaders such as President Gustavo Petro, Senator Iván Cepeda, and human rights organizations have praised the decision as a victory for judicial independence. The case has become a flashpoint for Colombia’s broader democratic and institutional health, especially with presidential elections due in May 2026.
Jacobsen: What happens now for Uribe and his party?
Tsukerman: Uribe has been placed under house arrest and is banned from holding public office, which has profound implications for his party’s strategy and candidate selection. He’s been the face and guiding force of the Democratic Center. His absence will force internal realignment and intensify infighting over who takes the reins moving forward.
There will almost certainly be appeals. The case now moves to the Bogotá Superior Court, which must issue a ruling by mid-October to avoid statute of limitations issues. From there, it could escalate to Colombia’s Supreme Court, and if unresolved, potentially to the Inter-American human rights system.
Jacobsen: Uribe’s legacy itself is contested, isn’t it?
Tsukerman: Very much so. On the one hand, he’s credited with reasserting state control over large parts of Colombia during his presidency, especially in the fight against the FARC. On the other hand, he’s been linked to the “false positives”scandal, where civilians were killed and falsely labelled as enemy combatants, as well as alleged ties to paramilitary groups.
This case hinges on the accusation that Uribe manipulated jailed paramilitary witnesses to discredit Cepeda—his political adversary—who was investigating Uribe’s alleged paramilitary connections. Essentially, the charge is that Uribe used elements of the very forces he once fought against to carry out a political smear campaign.
Jacobsen: Sounds like a classic “no clean hands” scenario.
Tsukerman: That’s a fair characterization. It’s murky, it’s messy, and it underscores the deep entanglement of politics, justice, and armed conflict in Colombia’s recent history. The legal and political fallout from this case will likely shape the country’s trajectory well beyond 2026.
Jacobsen: So, it’s being reported as “exasperation”—that’s the word used in a recent article I read, and honestly, it struck me as a bit of editorializing, which is unusual for wire services like Reuters. The context is frustration over Gaza, which is now reportedly pushing three of Israel’s allies toward recognizing a Palestinian state.
For listeners who may not know, the status of Palestine has long been contentious. Since 2012, Palestine has held the same observer status at the United Nations as the Holy See (the Vatican). However, many countries still don’t recognize it as a sovereign state. Others do recognize it fully. So, it’s not just a historical debate—it remains a politically contested issue.
What’s interesting here is that three close allies of Israel are reportedly moving—or being “pushed,” to use their word—toward recognizing Palestinian statehood. I believe a fourth might be Canada, possibly by September. But again, that’s something I’d want to double-check.
What’s your take on this? The two-state solution has been the official framework for decades. Still, opinions vary widely on how achievable it is at this point.
Tsukerman: You’re right to raise concerns about the language used—it’s more complicated than some of the reporting suggests.
First, none of the three countries has officially recognized a Palestinian state yet. What they’ve done is threaten to do so, under specific conditions.
In the case of Norway, its foreign minister stated that if Israel fails to declare or uphold a ceasefire, Norway would consider recognition. The issue there is that Israel has already expressed willingness to agree to a truce, while Hamas rejected the proposed terms. That rejection led to Norway’s envoy storming out of negotiations, accusing Israel of planning to escalate retaliatory measures. This accusation doesn’t fully align with the facts.
Jacobsen: So the trigger wasn’t Israel’s refusal, but Hamas’s?
Tsukerman: Precisely. That’s a key detail many outlets gloss over. Hamas refused the terms of the ceasefire. Meanwhile, Israel has taken several humanitarian steps:
- The blockade was eased.
- Humanitarian pauses were instituted.
- Aid deliveries were significantly expanded.
- The UN resumed operations inside Gaza.
- And multiple countries launched the largest coordinated airdrop operation to date to deliver relief.
Despite this, Hamas has actively obstructed aid efforts—diverting shipments, blocking deliveries, and even reselling humanitarian supplies at inflated prices.
Jacobsen: And what about Macron?
Tsukerman: Macron was more nuanced. He said he might announce French recognition of Palestine at the UN General Assembly, but only if the humanitarian crisis isn’t resolved through other means before then. That was a conditional statement, not a policy shift.
Since then, Israel and international actors have taken numerous steps to mitigate the crisis. So Macron’s condition hasn’t yet been met, and he hasn’t moved forward with recognition.
Jacobsen: So in essence, what’s being portrayed as a surge toward Palestinian statehood recognition is more like conditional diplomatic posturing, dependent on evolving ground realities?
Tsukerman: Exactly. These are leverage tactics—not finalized decisions. And they’re aimed just as much at Hamas and internal political audiences as they are at Israel.
In sum, while the two-state solution remains the official diplomatic framework, the reality on the ground is fragmented, and recognition talk—at this stage—is largely conditional, reactive, and politically calculated rather than a real-time policy transformation.
Jacobsen: So, all of this has led to further diplomatic strain. There has been an open confrontation between Israeli officials and the foreign ministers of those three countries that floated the idea of recognizing a Palestinian state. Some of those foreign ministers have privately admitted that their plan backfired—the moment they made those announcements, Hamas began celebrating, which was not the reaction they were hoping for.
On top of that, Mahmoud Abbas, head of the Palestinian Authority, announced new elections for next year. But shortly after, some of the foreign officials involved were hit with sanctions by the United States, adding yet another layer of political tension.
Tsukerman: Right—and the situation has become even more chaotic due to the rhetoric from figures like Ami Ayalon and Mamdani, who claimed recently that Israel is not even a real country, calling it merely “an idea.” He’s arguing that Israel shouldn’t exist, and that Palestine should be a contiguous state encompassing the West Bank, Gaza, and all territory in between.
In other words, instead of supporting a two-state solution, which is still the official stance of the Arab League and reflected in a tripartite statement by Egypt, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia, Mamdani is pushing for a one-state solution—but with Palestine replacing Israel, not coexisting alongside it.
Jacobsen: And just to be clear—Mamdani has no actual political power, correct?
Tsukerman: Correct. He’s not a policymaker. But his comments are reflective of a sentiment that exists on the fringes—among Hamas sympathizers and certain anti-Israel activists. While Hamas itself isn’t even interested in a defined Palestinian state—they openly call for inclusion in a broader Islamic caliphate, as outlined in their charter—there are secular or non-Islamist sympathizers who still agree with the idea of eliminating Israel as a state.
This is where the diplomatic controversy heats up. None of the three Western leaders who floated the idea of recognizing Palestine articulated specific borders. They proposed recognition unilaterally, without any negotiated parameters, delimitation, or demarcation, which goes against longstanding U.S. policy, which has consistently emphasized a negotiated solution between Israel and the Palestinians.
Jacobsen: So this isn’t just a political miscalculation—it’s a departure from decades of diplomatic precedent.
Tsukerman: Exactly. The West—particularly the U.S. and the EU—has continuously operated under the assumption that mutual negotiations would determine borders, security guarantees, and other key aspects of statehood. These new comments represent a break from that framework. And now, the countries involved face a diplomatic dilemma.
They made these statements publicly, not behind closed doors. So now they’re stuck. Can they walk them back? If they attempt to reframe their recognition as symbolic or conceptual—acknowledging a future Palestinian state, but not formally recognizing it in legal terms—will it make a difference?
Practically speaking, no. It won’t change anything on the ground. But politically, one of the ministers, Espen Barth Eide of Norway, explicitly said the point was to put pressure on Israel. Yet ironically, he was pushing for a ceasefire that Israel had already agreed to.
Jacobsen: So it was an effort to leverage something that had already been conceded?
Tsukerman: Pretty much. Which raises the question: What exactly were they trying to achieve? All this has done is create a diplomatic scandal, where no one knows how to resolve it because key officials spoke too soon without a clear plan or coordination.
Jacobsen: So the result? Status quo?
Tsukerman: Yes—at best, a continuation of the current impasse. In terms of the actual process of recognizing a Palestinian state, there’s a formal diplomatic mechanism for that. But this scandal between Israel, France, the UK, and others is far more volatile because it played out in the public arena.
That means these governments now face a choice: either act on their public declarations or find a politically palatable excuse for backing off. And neither option looks great. In the meantime, Hamas is capitalizing on the situation—using it to highlight tensions between Israel and its Western allies, and to further the narrative that Israel is becoming isolated on the global stage.
Jacobsen: The Arab League is now saying—collectively and unequivocally—that Hamas must go. They continue to support a two-state solution, but they’re making it clear: it has to be without Hamas.
Tsukerman: That’s a significant shift. While the Western leaders haven’t explicitly said “Hamas must go,” they’ve implied it. They’ve spoken about supporting the idea of Palestinian statehood. Still, in practical terms, that recognition would require a government not controlled by Hamas.
The problem is in the messaging. What the public hears is that these leaders are recognizing a Palestinian state—full stop. There’s no mention of conditions or the need for governance reforms. That’s why it’s so controversial. It sounds unconditional, even if, in reality, it isn’t.
But suppose you examine what they’ve said. In that case, it’s not fundamentally different from the diplomatic language we’ve heard for decades: support for a two-state solution, with the expectation that any Palestinian state must meet basic governance and security criteria.
Jacobsen: So, the controversy is more about the optics than the substance.
Tsukerman: Exactly. It’s about timing, framing, and public perception. Suppose the statements had included firmer language about excluding terrorist groups from any future Palestinian government. In that case, the backlash might’ve been more muted. But instead, it came across as rushed, vague, and poorly coordinated.
Jacobsen: Alright, last topic for this week: Sudan. On July 31, in Cairo and Dubai, we saw reports that Sudan’s paramilitary RSF has formed a parallel government, essentially splitting the country. This comes after two years of civil war, ethnic cleansing, famine, and mass displacement.
In the West, public concern seems laser-focused on Russia-Ukraine and Israel-Palestine, which is fair to some extent. But by most definitions, over a dozen major wars are going on globally, and Sudan is arguably one of the worst. What are your thoughts on both the Western sphere of concern and the humanitarian disaster unfolding in Sudan?
Tsukerman: Sudan’s civil war is, without question, a far greater humanitarian disaster than either Ukraine or Gaza in terms of civilian casualties, mass displacement, and human suffering. We’re talking about hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths—and that’s not even counting combatants.
But it gets less attention for several reasons. First, it’s an internal conflict, not a war between two recognized nations. That makes it harder to fit into the Western media’s geopolitical narratives.
Second, there’s no clear “good guy”. This is a power struggle between two factions—the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF). Both claim legitimacy. Both are accused of atrocities. The victims are overwhelmingly the Sudanese people.
Jacobsen: So, it’s not a clear-cut story. That complicates public engagement.
Tsukerman: Exactly. Historically, Western media and governments have struggled to mobilize sustained attention when a crisis doesn’t involve strategic rivals or Western interests. Sudan has long been treated as peripheral—tragic, but geopolitically “nonessential.”
To add context: RSF, formerly part of the Janjaweed militias responsible for atrocities in Darfur, was partially integrated into the Sudanese military before splintering under the leadership of Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo (Hemeti). It’s largely secular, but brutally opportunistic. The SAF, meanwhile, is also accused of systemic abuses.
Jacobsen: So what we’re seeing now is a de facto partition of Sudan?
Tsukerman: Yes. With the RSF declaring a parallel government, the country is effectively split. That introduces new risks: regional spillover, international refugee crises, destabilization of neighbouring countries, and even the collapse of any future unified state.
And yet, there’s almost no international appetite to intervene or even seriously mediate. Sudan is suffering in silence, mainly because it doesn’t align with the dominant narratives of Western foreign policy or media coverage.
The RSF—the Rapid Support Forces—is widely believed to be responsible for some of the ongoing massacres in Darfur, particularly targeting Black African populations. The RSF is predominantly Arab-led and has recruited mercenaries from outside Sudan, including from Chad and other neighbouring countries.
It receives backing from Russia, which has clear interests in Sudan’s gold mines—many of which are controlled by or accessible through RSF-held territories. Russia’s support is also strategic, seeking to expand its influence in Africa and secure military and commercial footholds, particularly as part of its broader efforts to counter Western influence.
The United Arab Emirates (UAE) also backs the RSF, though for different reasons. The UAE had previously sought to establish a naval base in Sudan to expand its maritime influence. Still, the Sudanese army-led government rejected that proposal.
Additionally, the UAE has grown wary of the Sudanese military’s increasing re-engagement with former regime elements, particularly figures affiliated with Omar al-Bashir’s Muslim Brotherhood-aligned networks. These individuals have begun returning to positions of influence within the government, raising the alarm in Abu Dhabi, which views the Brotherhood as a major regional threat.
Jacobsen: So the Sudanese army is being backed by a completely different group of actors?
Tsukerman: Yes. The Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), or the formal government, is supported by a loose coalition that includes Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and others.
- Iran has reportedly supplied drones and weaponry.
- Egypt and Saudi Arabia back the SAF primarily for security and stability reasons, viewing the military as a more manageable and predictable partner than the RSF.
The United States has attempted to mediate. Under the Biden administration, a special envoy was appointed to help broker peace. Still, the position’s status is unclear at this point. To date, no diplomatic breakthrough has occurred.
Jacobsen: Didn’t Saudi Arabia try to host talks?
Tsukerman: Yes, Saudi Arabia did attempt to convene peace negotiations in Jeddah, but neither faction’s leadership attended. The Sudanese president has since gone on a diplomatic tour of countries like Qatar, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia, seeking political support and funding.
Meanwhile, both sides have reportedly received weapons and material support from their international backers. There are also well-documented cases of weaponized starvation, where humanitarian aid is deliberately blocked, contributing to an escalating famine.
Jacobsen: That’s devastating.
Tsukerman: It is. We’re looking at a documented mass famine, tens of thousands of civilian casualties, and systematic targeting of ethnic communities. In Darfur, there has also been a separate but overlapping conflict, with a specific campaign of violence against Black minorities, amounting to ethnic cleansing.
Both sides have experienced territorial gains and losses. The Sudanese army has taken back some key cities, while the RSF is now attempting to oust SAF forces from Al-Fashir—the military’s last stronghold in Western Darfur. It’s a seesaw battle across different sectarian and tribal lines.
Jacobsen: And yet—no international outcry, no campus protests, no media firestorm.
Tsukerman: That’s the tragedy. Despite the severity of the humanitarian crisis, it hasn’t translated into mass global demonstrations or political activism, unlike what we’ve seen with Ukraine or Gaza.
The U.S. has imposed sanctions on leadership figures from both the RSF and SAF, but the practical impact is minimal. Most of these leaders don’t travel to the West and don’t hold assets in Western financial systems, so the sanctions are largely symbolic.
This is a multi-layered war, fueled by foreign involvement, mercenaries, sectarian violence, and power struggles—but it remains almost invisible in global discourse.
The situation in Sudan has turned into a massive mess, and no one seems to know how to resolve it. There are just too many layers—ethnic, sectarian, geopolitical—and too many external actors involved, each with competing interests. Andfrankly, there’s no strong incentive for any of them to stop meddling.
One key reason the West has paid less attention to the Sudanese civil war is that it’s not perceived as a direct military or security threat to Western interests, at least not at the moment.
In the Middle East, the war in Gaza has spilled over into broader conflict, with Houthi attacks disrupting international trade and escalating tensions involving Iran, Hezbollah, and others. In Europe, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine continues to dominate headlines—not just because of the war itself, but because of broader security threats, hybrid warfare, and concerns about spillover into NATO countries.
By contrast, Sudan’s conflict is seen as self-contained, even though it has regional implications involving African and Middle Eastern countries, and also Russia and China, who are actively engaged.
Jacobsen: And the U.S. hasn’t taken a decisive role here either, correct?
Tsukerman: Correct. The U.S. focus has been disproportionately on Russia and China, especially under the Biden administration. The result is that Sudan gets treated like a peripheral crisis. The strategy so far has been more about pushing Russia and China out of Sudan rather than putting pressure on the actual parties in the conflict. But that approach isn’t working.
Under Trump, the approach was different but equally ineffective. Africa was deprioritized almost entirely, outside of narrow concerns like rare earth elements and counterterrorism operations against groups like al-Shabaab in Somalia. Beyond that, it was never treated as a serious strategic priority.
Jacobsen: So both administrations have fallen short—but in different ways?
Tsukerman: Exactly. And I don’t think either administration fully understood the complexity of the conflict. Sudan is often dismissed as “just another endless war,” but that overlooks the enormous human cost and the potential for regional destabilization. The U.S. has tried diplomatic mediation, but without direct leverage—military, economic, or otherwise—those efforts have stalled.
In contrast, the U.S. had better luck recently with the tensions between the DRC and Rwanda, where a tentative accord was signed. Whether that holds remains to be seen.
Now, Trump is reportedly offering to mediate between Ethiopia and Egypt on the Nile water rights dispute. That’s commendable, but it’s unclear whether anything tangible will come of it.
As for Sudan, unless both leaders are removed or one side decisively prevails, it’s difficult to imagine a political or diplomatic solution taking hold. The announcement of a parallel government by the RSF isn’t surprising—it’s more a formalization of their existing control. They’ve already operated as a de facto state within their territories.
This move is meant to increase legitimacy, attract external political support, and fundraise internationally. But for people on the ground, it won’t change much—they’re still caught between two brutal forces.
Jacobsen: Irina, thank you again for your time and insights.
Tsukerman: Always a pleasure. See you next week.
Jacobsen: Yep—get some rest before your next interview. Take care.
Tsukerman: You too. Have a good night.
Jacobsen: 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): 2025/08/11
Ed Hirs is a Yale-educated energy economist and an Energy Fellow at the University of Houston, where he teaches undergraduate and graduate courses in energy economics. Known for his precise, nonpartisan analysis, he is a trusted voice on energy markets, corporate governance, and public policy. Hirs frequently contributes to national and international media and co-chairs the Yale Alumni in Energy conference, promoting fact-based dialogue on global energy security and sustainable economic strategies. In conversation with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Hirs critiques the failure of crypto to function as a genuine currency and highlights its role in market manipulation, energy grid distortion, and financial speculation. Drawing on examples from Texas’s deregulated power sector and the societal impacts of cryptocurrency, Hirs connects the rise of digital assets to systemic risk and exploitation. He warns of parallels to historic financial scams and emphasizes the long-term costs borne by everyday citizens. This expert analysis presents a sobering view of the future and economic implications of crypto.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, what is Bitcoin? What does it do for the economy? And why do people sometimes take issue with your response to that question?
Ed Hirs: Well, cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin do not meet the traditional definition of a currency—at least, not as economists or financial professionals typically define one. A currency is generally expected to serve as a medium of exchange, a unit of account, and a store of value. Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies struggle on all three fronts:
- Medium of exchange: While some merchants accept Bitcoin, its adoption in everyday transactions remains limited, mainly due to price volatility and slow transaction times.
- Unit of account: Prices are rarely listed in Bitcoin. Even within crypto markets, values are most often denominated in U.S. dollars.
- Store of value: Bitcoin’s extreme price volatility undermines its reliability as a store of wealth.
Hirs: Earlier today, in a discussion group with other journalists, someone asked: “When will we see federal action to regulate cryptocurrency?” My response was that the point of cryptocurrency, as initially conceived, was to avoid regulation and centralized control. That makes comprehensive regulation extremely difficult.
And unlike traditional financial systems, cryptocurrencies generally lack clear counterparty relationships. There is no central authority or entity responsible on the other side of a transaction—no accountable institution to oversee, audit, or enforce compliance.
Jacobsen: So what can be regulated?
Hirs: The infrastructure around crypto—like exchanges, stablecoins, and custodians—is being increasingly brought under regulatory frameworks. However, decentralized assets like Bitcoin themselves remain largely outside traditional legal control. This creates enormous challenges for enforcement.
If cryptocurrencies were so effective as currencies, you might wonder: why do nearly all users still measure their wealth in dollars? Even Bitcoin investors typically cash out in fiat currency when they want to realize profits or make significant purchases.
Some governments, such as China, have restricted or banned cryptocurrency mining and trading—not just due to crime but also because of concerns over energy consumption, financial instability risks, and capital flight. However, cryptocurrencies have been used in illicit transactions. Chainalysis, a blockchain analytics firm, reported that illegal crypto transaction volumes accounted for roughly 0.24% of all cryptocurrency activity in 2022—a small fraction, but still billions of dollars.
In Texas, for instance, cryptocurrency ATMs are available in gas stations and convenience stores. But I have never seen anyone buy beef jerky with Bitcoin. Instead, such ATMs have been used in money laundering schemes, where illicit funds are converted into cryptocurrency and moved anonymously across borders.
This functionality can make crypto appealing to bad actors. It facilitates the rapid transfer of value without traditional oversight, which undermines anti-money laundering (AML) and know-your-customer (KYC) controls. Some experts argue that cryptocurrencies have, in effect, made it easier to move money anonymously than traditional cash once did.
Back in the Miami Vice era, the Federal Reserve tracked large inflows of drug money—often literally contaminated with cocaine—through South Florida and Texas. Today, the movement of illicit finance may not require bundles of cash at all, thanks in part to crypto.
The public, however, often overlooks these concerns. Many individuals buy or trade crypto much like they purchase lottery tickets—hoping for exponential gains. Some view it as a speculative asset rather than a currency.
Many of the so-called “crypto bros” who gathered at Donald Trump’s recent private event fall into that camp. But despite the hype, cryptocurrencies have not become a major driver of job creation or broad-based economic development. Most blockchain-related jobs are concentrated in speculative finance, marketing, and tech—areas not immune to boom-and-bust cycles.
Jacobsen: What impact has cryptocurrency had on Texas’s energy market?
Hirs: In Texas, the rise of cryptocurrency—particularly Bitcoin—had significant effects on electricity markets. Cryptocurrency miners began entering into contracts to purchase electricity at about 2.5 cents per kilowatt-hour, which was substantially below the average retail rate paid by consumers. In return, these miners agreed to curtail or buy off the grid during periods of high demand.
For example, during the February 2021 winter storm, one major cryptocurrency mining operation, along with its commodity trading partner, reportedly earned over $100 million in profits—not by mining Bitcoin, but by shutting down operations and selling back electricity at peak prices. In June 2023, that same mining firm earned approximately $30 million simply by powering down when demand surged.
Jacobsen: So, everyday Texans are effectively paying for this?
Hirs: Exactly. The average Texan bears the cost through higher electricity rates. In 2021, estimates suggested that crypto miners were consuming as much electricity as the entire city of Austin. Since then, their energy use has only increased.
ERCOT—the Electric Reliability Council of Texas—does not publish detailed data on cryptocurrency-related energy consumption. It’s a politically sensitive issue. However, independent estimates suggest crypto mining has increased the average Texan’s electricity bill by more than 5%. That effectively means everyday residents are subsidizing an industry that undermines the reliability and affordability of the grid.
Jacobsen: And beyond energy, how does this affect broader society?
Hirs: We are facilitating an enterprise that complicates the work of law enforcement, including the Texas Rangers, by making financial tracking and oversight more difficult.
Jacobsen: What exactly is a “Bitcoin bro”?
Hirs: That term usually refers to the promoters and evangelists of the cryptocurrency industry—the ones hyping it online, often without acknowledging the systemic risks or social costs. There’s a great piece by Robert McCauley in the Financial Times from a few years ago. I’ll send it to you. In it, he compares cryptocurrencies to a Madoff-style Ponzi scheme and argues that anyone participating in the hype is, frankly, doing Madoff a disservice.
McCauley also contributed a chapter to the latest edition of Manias, Panics, and Crashes. Are you familiar with that book? It’s a classic—tracing financial disasters from the South Sea Bubble to the tulip craze and virtually every major scam since. The original editions were written by Charles Kindleberger, a renowned professor at MIT. Bob Aliber, professor emeritus at the University of Chicago, handled later editions. McCauley has now taken up the mantle. I believe the most recent edition is the eighth. It’s a terrific book—great for planes, trains, or poolside reading—short, digestible vignettes on financial folly.
Jacobsen: So are you saying some people in power could manipulate the energy grid to favour crypto?
Hirs: Yes. People with vested interests in crypto can, without breaking the law but arguably acting unethically, manipulate energy markets or policy for personal gain.
Take Texas’s leadership. The governor of Texas has been accepting cryptocurrency campaign contributions for over twelve years. Texas also operates a deregulated electricity grid, a system launched during Governor George W. Bush’s administration before he became president.
The rationale at the time, promoted by Enron, was that the fleet of Texas power plants was oversized—built to meet maximum peak demand. Around 20% of plants operated only 4 to 8 weeks per year. The solution? Let them compete in a so-called “electricity-only” market, where producers are paid only for the electricity they sell, not for capacity. That appealed to Bush, a well-known C-minus economics student at Yale. (No joke, that was on his transcript.)
If baseball teams like the Toronto Blue Jays were paid the same way—only for runs scored, not for player salaries or ballpark upkeep—it would be absurd. Yet that is essentially how Texas decided to run its grid.
It’s like this: only the players actually on the field get paid. Those sitting on the bench don’t. That’s how Texas designed its electricity market. So, over the next 20 years, many power plants left the Texas grid. They operated only a couple of months each year and had no revenue during the other ten months. Naturally, they shut down. They disappeared.
Economists were already sounding the alarm as early as 2006 and 2007. In these so-called deregulated grids, incumbent generators were not earning a return on capital. They weren’t reinvesting in infrastructure. The price of electricity in Texas did not cover the cost of building the cheapest new natural gas-fired power plant for eight out of the ten years before the 2021 winter freeze.
Meanwhile, the Texas economy was booming. In 2010, Texas’s gross state product was around $1.25 trillion. By 2021, it had grown to nearly $1.99 trillion. And yet, during that same period, the fleet of dispatchable (i.e., controllable, on-demand) power plants shrunk.
Jacobsen: But critics still blame renewables?
Hirs: Many far-right commentators argue that wind and solar energy have somehow compromised the integrity of the Texas grid. But that is not true. The issue is rooted in the market design itself.
Texas relinquished grid reliability in 2002 when it adopted a deregulated market model. I first wrote about the consequences in 2013, following the deadly 2011 freeze, warning that Texas was attempting to manage its power grid using outdated linear programming models—essentially, the same economic planning tools the Soviet Union employed in the 1960s and ’70s.
I’ve returned to this theme over and over again. I even posted a photo on LinkedIn of one of my presentations at Yale in March. In it, you can see a screenshot of ERCOT’s real-time dashboard behind me. The trolls came out in full force. I was covering the full spectrum of U.S. electricity markets—and comparing Texas’s system to the Soviet model, which historically undervalued capital and discouraged reinvestment.
Over time, if no one has the incentive to invest, then any so-called “excess capacity” disappears. Now, on a hot or cold day, prices can spike from an average of 4.5 cents per kilowatt-hour to $5 per kilowatt-hour. That’s an enormous windfall for those on the supply side.
There are more than 1,200 generating units in Texas. Let’s say we run the Scott and Ed Power Company, and we have 15 units. If I told you, “Hey, tomorrow’s going to be hot—we need to run all 15 units,” you might respond, “Ed, if we’re 5 gigawatts short, the price will hit $5 per kilowatt-hour. We’ll make a fortune running just 10 units. Why don’t you go have a beer and relax?”
That’s the kind of market manipulation and gaming I’ve been pointing out for years. And I’ll send you the original piece I wrote in 2013. It went back and forth with others. If you’ve found the photo, you’ll understand why it stirred controversy. If not, I’ll send it to you.
My professor and colleague, Paul McAvoy, and I were close—colleagues, friends, and co-authors. He would have appreciated the critique. He taught me to follow the economics, not the ideology. I kept cycling this piece back and forth with him. Finally, he said, “I like this so much, I’m going to sign off on it.” When your graduate professor says that, you say, “Let’s do it.”
He had served in the Johnson and Ford administrations on the Council of Economic Advisers. He also coined the term “voodoo economics” about Reaganomics.
Jacobsen: That reminds me of an interview I saw with a guy at Cambridge who works in philosophy of economics. He made a sharp observation: when economics lacks substantive insight, there’s a tendency to apply very sophisticated mathematics as a veneer—as if to buttress a weak argument. It’s misdirection. And people fall for it.
Hirs: The original piece I wrote was titled “ERCOT,” with the ‘C’ replaced by a hammer and sickle. The editor at the time thought it was too inflammatory. Now, he says he regrets not letting it stand.
I’ve written about this topic in 2013, 2016, 2019, and 2021. I’ve been profiled in Texas Monthly and other publications. But the paid analysts at the University of Texas, or the business columnists who are bought off, do not appreciate the irony—at all.
And let’s be honest: many of these so-called “market experts” at UT are civil engineers. They would not recognize a supply and demand curve if it landed on them. They also do not understand game theory.
Not many people truly understood John Nash’s work when he first proposed it. But Nash’s roommate at Princeton, Martin Shubik, was my game theory professor. He wrote a four-page paper that demonstrated Nash’s equilibrium could be disrupted under certain market conditions. Martin had also worked at the Toronto Electric Utility before moving to Princeton. Yes, in Eastern Canada.
I ran all of this by Martin, Paul McAvoy, and William Nordhaus. It’s a deep, inside-baseball look at the Texas grid—and I am still the only academic who lays it out this way. One of the commissioners of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) came up to me at a conference in Colorado last year after I gave a talk. He said, “You’re the only academic who hasn’t been bought off. What can I do for you?”
I told him, half-jokingly, “Make me an offer.”
And the same applies to journalism. If you want to write the kind of articles you think are essential—ones with integrity and critique—you’ll need some luck to get them published. This is the space I’ve carved out. I am correct on the facts. It’s messy, but that’s the nature of economics.
There are criminal records to show it. That 2021 piece I mentioned earlier referred to Bernie Madoff—a man who ran one of the most infamous Ponzi schemes in U.S. history. He defrauded investors for over three decades. That case is a warning: without transparency, the system can and will be exploited.
Jacobsen: So you get these Ponzi schemes—or Ponzi-style schemes—that affect many people, often those who were either not critical enough in their inquiries or were misled by individuals who appeared legitimate. Regardless, cryptocurrency—and the so-called crypto bros or Bitcoin bros—can fall under such a category as well, particularly as you’ve been framing and describing it.
When it comes to financial innovations that emerge and claim to offer new ways of doing finance—or becoming a “currency” while still being priced in U.S. dollars, as you noted earlier—what tends to be, if not always the case, the typical endgame for the people pushing these schemes? And what happens to the people who buy into them?
Hirs: It’s a confidence game or a con game. As long as people continue to believe in it—and maintain confidence—it keeps going. But if 5% or 10% of current Bitcoin holders decide to run for the exits, there likely won’t be anyone on the other side to buy. That’s where market liquidity becomes critical.
In traditional markets—like traded shares, ETFs, or commodities—liquidity may dry up, but there’s some structure and accountability behind them. Take oil, for example. In April 2020, during the pandemic shutdown, the price of West Texas Intermediate crude oil went negative. That happened because demand collapsed—people stopped driving, refineries stopped taking crude, and storage filled up. Some producers in the Permian Basin were so desperate that they were storing oil in swimming pools.
The U.S. Oil ETF, which rolls forward futures contracts each month, got caught. They had bought contracts for physical delivery, but there was no available storage in Cushing, Oklahoma, so they had to sell—fast. Meanwhile, legendary investor Carl Icahn had a million barrels of storage available. He bought oil at a price of minus $17 per barrel, meaning he was paid to take it. He already had a sale lined up for delivery nine months later at around $70.75 a barrel. That’s the kind of market dislocation that happens when liquidity disappears and storage becomes scarce.
With cryptocurrency, if everyone heads for the exit, there is no backstop—no central authority, no entity to ensure liquidity or enforce obligations. And there’s no recourse. At least with tulip mania in the 1600s, you still had an actual tulip.
You have to remain detached. I’ve been in Houston for 43 years. I was there during Enron. I was also the only corporate finance professional in Houston who could be employed by the Department of Justice’s Enron Task Force to work on the prosecution of Enron and its executives.
I served as a consulting expert for the prosecution. There’s a Bloomberg Law piece—a 20th-anniversary interview—with me and Leslie Caldwell, who later served in the Obama administration as Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division. She was also Chief of the Enron Task Force for a time. In that interview, we discussed what happened behind the scenes.
We were not in the same recording session. They spliced our comments together. If I had heard her remarks beforehand, I would have said that she still does not fully understand what happened. It was a plain pedestrian fraud. But she was so focused on the minutiae of the off-balance sheet transactions that she missed the larger picture.
Back in 1993, the renowned Forbes journalist Tony Mack explained precisely how Enron’s mark-to-market accounting was intended to function.
Let’s say I entered into a deal to build a power plant—one expected to generate cash flows for 20 years. Suppose I’ve locked in the construction cost and secured a predictable revenue stream. What Enron would do is project the future cash flows, discount them to present value, and book all of it as profit immediately in the current reporting period.
And Enron kept doing this—over and over. Initially, they brought transparency and liquidity to natural gas trading and later to electricity trading. That was a real value. But as transparency and standardization increased, the bid-ask spread narrowed, and profits from trading shrank. So, if you want to keep reporting ever-increasing profits and revenue, you need to manufacture transactions.
That’s when Enron pivoted. Besides using mark-to-market accounting, they began trading with themselves. By 1996, they were making deals with their own publicly traded subsidiaries—EOG Resources and Mariner Energy. They would sell assets at the end of one financial period and then repurchase them in the next to improve the balance sheet.
Journalist Harry Hurt III at Fortune picked up on this in 1996, and that’s when Enron escalated its use of special purpose entities (SPEs) managed by its CFO. CalPERS, the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, was even involved in facilitating transactions that helped Enron beautify its books at each reporting period.
This continued until 2001 when Enron ran out of things to sell. I had refused to work at Enron. A recruiting firm once called me down and told me I was their best story. Additionally, back in 1987, my landlord lost his job at Enron, along with 1,500 others, due to a supposedly one-time $50 million after-tax loss from the infamous Valhalla oil trading scandal.
Jacobsen: That sounds like a familiar scam setup.
Hirs: I bet my landlord two beers it wasn’t $50 million—it was $1.5 billion. Sure enough, in 2003, I collected those two beers.
The DOJ tried to indict Enron for the Valhalla scandal, but the judge ruled that it was beyond the statute of limitations. Still, the government had more than enough to go after them successfully on other grounds.
The math didn’t work. Everyone fooled themselves into believing it did. Some banks refused to do business with Enron—and they were ultimately vindicated. Some law firms declined to represent them, too. But as long as the stock price kept rising, no one wanted to look under the hood.
The same thing happened in the Permian Basin during the build-up to recent oil and gas stock collapses. One geologist kept pointing out that the wells were becoming increasingly gassy, which made them less valuable. The industry turned on him.
His name is Scott LaPierre. He posted on LinkedIn that Scott Sheffield—the longtime CEO of Pioneer Natural Resources—offered him $2 million to stay quiet and disappear. He refused. And, of course, this year, Scott Sheffield admitted—during earnings week—that, yes, they had drilled all the good spots. It is all gassier now. He essentially confirmed that he misled the industry for years, claiming the reserves were more oil-rich than they were.
Jacobsen: Do reputations ever recover from a lie like that—whether admitted or not—once it’s found out years later? Especially when it’s not a one-off but a pattern repeated for personal gain?
Hirs: No, but it seems they don’t care. People move on. Institutions look the other way. The damage is done, and often the perpetrators keep going. Take real estate in New York. Major developers will not do business with anything tied to Donald Trump. Does that matter to Trump? Not. That could be part of why he owns so many golf clubs.
Jacobsen: Because they will not let him join any others?
Hirs: Some are open to the public for dining. But in terms of private membership—he’s unwelcome at many elite clubs. So he built his own. I’ve heard similar things from friends in the art world, academia, and philanthropy. The problem with tainted money, they say, is—if there’s enough of it, it stops being tainted. [Laughing] That’s how it goes.
Jacobsen: Do you think cryptocurrency and Bitcoin—if not all of it, then at least the most speculative parts and the figureheads who promote it—are headed toward that same fate? That is, reputational collapse?
Hirs: Yes. I believe so. Most of it has no economic justification whatsoever. Eventually, I expect it will all collapse. The foundation is hollow—it’s built on hype, not value.
Jacobsen: Do we know yet who was really behind that original Japanese pseudonym—Satoshi Nakamoto?
Hirs: No. There are countless internet theories. Some claim he is alive; others think he’s dead. No one knows for sure. It’s become mythological—almost like a deathbed creation with no real-world accountability.
Jacobsen: So many questions, but not all of them relevant to the urgent ones. Here’s a more grounded one: If oil prices drop significantly, does that hurt the geopolitical and military efforts of regimes like Russia and Iran?
Hirs: Yes. Low oil prices directly undermine the funding of Russian and Iranian war machines. For Iran, oil revenue is central to its regional influence—not just about Israel and the Middle East, but also in its long-standing rivalry with Saudi Arabia, which dates back centuries—not just decades.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Ed.
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): 2025/08/10
Algimantas Kvecys, Chair of the 14-year-old Lithuanian Skeptics’ Association (LSD), has led its revitalized second phase since November 2022. Originally student-driven and focused on consumer rights and pseudoscience debunking, the LSD now leverages social media to engage broader audiences, supplementing occasional TV and print coverage. Kvecys highlights tensions with mainstream outlets that both spread and challenge misinformation. He notes Lithuania’s eclectic mix of imported fringe beliefs—from shamanism to “scientific” seawater therapies—rooted in Soviet-era broadcasts. The LSD collaborates with volunteer scientists to research and push for better critical thinking education, stronger consumer rights protection and stricter church-state separation.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What is your current position?
Algimantas Kvecys: Chairman of the Lithuanian Skeptics’ Association.
Jacobsen: How long has this organization been around? How long have you been Chair?
Kvecys: The Lithuanian Skeptics’ Association has existed for approximately fourteen years. It has gone through two distinct periods. The first period was active for some time, but eventually slowed down. For the past four to five years, we have entered a renewed, more active phase. I have been Chair since November 2022.
Jacobsen: How would you describe the character of the first phase? How does it differ from the second phase?
Kvecys: The first phase primarily involved young people, students with diverse academic and professional backgrounds. It mainly focused on consumer rights, protection from pseudoscience, and defending rational thought.
In the current phase, we have expanded our range of activities. Times have changed — how we communicate, the channels we use, and the tools we have to reach a broader audience. In the earlier phase, it was more challenging to gain that kind of visibility. Now, we primarily use social media to engage with the public.
Jacobsen: Do you get any television coverage? In other words, do you have connections with Lithuanian journalists? Do they provide support, or was using alternative platforms like social media more of a necessity?
Kvecys: We do occasionally receive media coverage. Sometimes, we appear on local television and in mainstream media outlets, though social media remains our primary channel for outreach.
For sure, we have some connections, but a lot of the time it’s very complicated because many of those news outlets and mainstream media channels are the ones spreading misinformation, quackery, pseudoscience, and charlatan ideas — precisely the things we’re opposing.
So there’s a real tension when it comes to calling out journalists who are promoting those views. At the same time, some of their colleagues, sitting right next to them, are trying to debunk the very same ideas their peers are spreading. So that’s a funny side of things.
Jacobsen: Now, words like charlatan, quack, and so on — these are great terms. Woo-woo is another wonderful invention of the twentieth or twenty-first century. James Randi popularized it. Do these have approximately the same meaning when translated into Lithuanian?
Kvecys: Yes.
Jacobsen: Do they have the same punch?
Kvecys: Yes. They do. But I’d maybe like to add something — or I might forget to mention it later. So yes, we use those kinds of terms, and they carry a similar punch in Lithuanian. But I want to make a disclaimer about how I view those things.
I see them more as part of the human condition — things that people have always done and probably always will do unless we fundamentally change, maybe through AI or some other transformative process.
These behaviours are ongoing. We sometimes use terms like quack or charlatan to delegitimize specific actions or beliefs, to frame them in a negative light . Still, ultimately, they reflect enduring human tendencies.
Jacobsen: Yes, each culture has its landscape of nonsense — pseudoscience, magical thinking, and so on. In Canada, for example, it tends to fall into this vaguely spiritual domain: crystals, horoscopes, tarot, homeopathy, naturopathy. What is the character of it in Lithuania?
Kvecys: These are the kinds of things people continue to do, and we often attach those behaviours to terms we want to delegitimize — framing them negatively or critically. But really, they reflect ongoing human tendencies.
If we’re talking about the current situation, it is not that different or exotic compared to other countries. The influence of various practices, products, services, and belief systems arrives rapidly , mostly imported.
You will find everything from South American sorcery to Mongolian shamanism, to cosmic philosophical ideas, to Celtic or Norse mythology, like the Thunder God —. It all gets mashed into an eclectic mix.
And from what I have seen in the work of journalists and researchers worldwide, this is a global pattern. So we are currently in a phase of total diversity and complete eclecticism, mainly due to the influence of the internet.
But there are deeper historical roots, especially from the Soviet era. At that time, Eastern philosophies, folk traditions, and even pagan beliefs were interwoven into various forms of art and cultural expression.
There were even shows on national television — back then controlled by the Soviet regime — about parapsychology, mind control, hypnosis, and channelling. These were broadcast to everyday Lithuanians and throughout the Soviet Union.
So there is a strong legacy here, especially in fringe, proto-scientific ideas. One example is the so-called “scientific” seawater therapies that gained popularity. But the diversity is so vast now that it’s hard to trace any single influence.
It becomes difficult to unravel the threads and say definitively where a particular idea originated. Typically, when you come across some strange medical device in Lithuania, you can trace it back a few steps .
Often, it leads to someone in Saint Petersburg from 50 years ago, working on pseudoscientific ideas like resonances, auras, or crystals —. Then, we merge those with emerging technologies, such as lasers.
And forty years later, that legacy results in a multi-level marketing scheme selling food supplements — All based on the claim that a crystal has detected liver damage caused by the microplastics or the disbalanced aura of fallen Western ideas, or something equally abstract.
Jacobsen: And the problem is not necessarily the ideas themselves. Wrong, bad, and even racist ideas have always been around. The real issue is the institutional backing — when those ideas are given power and structure, that’s when they become dangerous and harmful to people.
People wasting their time on strange beliefs is one thing — that can be harmless, even if misguided. But when it starts causing real harm, that’s when we have a problem.
Of all the assorted beliefs and movements in Lithuania’s landscape, which ones do you think are the most dangerous to people’s lives and livelihoods , specifically because of institutional support? That support could come from the government, NGOs, the church, or international influence.
Historically, you mentioned the Soviet Union as one such example , profoundly influential. Which ideas today do you think deserve more scrutiny in Lithuania, based on their actual and potential harm?
Kvecys: Quackery — especially quackery that government institutions strongly support. If you take something like homeopathy, for example , it’s widely accepted, even though it’s entirely unscientific. In some contexts, yes, it seems relatively harmless.
Jacobsen: That’s the big one in Canada, too, mainly pushed by some alternative health circles.
Kvecys: But here, it is not seen as exotic or strange. It’s considered quite normal, even traditional in some ways. So it’s not even seen as worth questioning, which is part of the problem. That kind of normalization makes it more difficult to challenge.
Jacobsen: I mean, it does not necessarily have to be esoteric. It can be something familiar to many countries — something widespread, but still harmful.
Kvecys: No, I would go in a different direction, if I may. Let’s consider how certain scientific discoveries give rise to new popular ideas — things like quantum entanglement, quantum physics more generally, or the microbiome.
Jacobsen: The stuff that, by Feynman’s admission, no one understands.
Kvecys: Exactly. Take microbiome research, for example — studies about how gut microbes influence health. These kinds of discoveries quickly attract the attention of practitioners looking for ways to legitimize their products and services.
They either repackage what they already offer under the new terminology or create entirely new offerings based on these ideas, whether or not they’re supported by science. So, for instance, here in Lithuania, we’ve seen a surge of new businesses producing fermented drinks full of bacteria.
And some of these businesses reference microbiome research showing links to cancer development or prevention. But then they start advertising that their drinks cure cancer.
Jacobsen: Of course.
Kvecys: And often, they’re structured like pyramid schemes. We’ve found cases where 50-year-old women — usually from rural areas, often cancer survivors or with family members affected by cancer — become distributors.
They know other women in similar situations, and the network spreads. These women then host informal meetings where the drinks are promoted. And we are not talking about regulated, evidence-based presentations.
Suppose you listen to some of the recordings that occasionally surface online. In that case, you’d want to cover your ears — claims about revitalizing every cell in the body, total rejuvenation, curing cancer, and so on.
This is a particularly harmful form of quackery. It’s not just pseudoscience — it’s the exploitation of emerging scientific language for commercial gain, regardless of whether the science supports the claims being made.
Jacobsen: Deepak Chopra is probably the most prominent North American example of this. He’s an MD — he should know better — but like Dr. Oz, he’s either easily corrupted or delusional. I remember one debate he had with Sam Harris and someone else, I forget who, where he described sex as “the mechanics of creation.” It’s also the sloppiness of language around these ideas that enables the deception.
Kvecys: Perfect bullshitters.
Jacobsen: Perfect bullshitters. Because they’re intelligent. They’re qualified. So they either know better, or they’re genuinely delusional. But given their intelligence, it’s more likely that they do know better . And that they’re just selling nonsense.
Kvecys: What I forgot to mention earlier is a specific case that might be useful to highlight , because it’s genuinely harmful. We researched the practice of physiognomy here in Lithuania. Physiognomy is the idea that you can determine a person’s character or personality traits by analyzing their facial features , like the structure, proportions, and so on.
These ideas are ancient. Aristotle had similar theories, and traditional Chinese culture also embraced such concepts. Over time, these beliefs have reemerged in various forms around the world.
In Lithuania, one recent wave of interest in physiognomy was not just another esoteric contemplation— it became apparent in every news outlet. There are a few practitioners here promoting physiognomy as a legitimate method. The real red flag came when they started claiming they could diagnose psychopathology by examining ear shapes . That you could detect liver cancer from the ear lobe. That kind of absurdity. But there was something even more troubling.
Jacobsen: I prefer reading poems.
Kvecys: [Laughing] Yes. In addition to publishing books, offering paid courses, and giving lectures, these practitioners were selling their services to companies. They were conducting HR seminars , training human resources personnel on how to use physiognomy in hiring decisions.
So, imagine: during a job interview, the HR person is scanning your face to determine if you’re better suited for manual labour or a management position — assessing your abilities, responsibilities, and potential based on your facial features.
That was a serious red flag. These companies were buying these lectures and attempting to incorporate this pseudoscientific method into their hiring processes. We launched a research initiative. We contacted numerous HR firms and media outlets.
One of the most significant breakthroughs was getting the government media outlet, LRT (Lithuanian National Radio and Television), to act. They had hosted around 20 different content pieces — radio shows, TV segments, interviews, and articles — about physiognomy. All of that content has since been taken down.
It was a sporadic case. You have to acknowledge that — it’s highly uncommon for 20 items from a single media source to be removed at once on a single topic. That rarely happens. Usually, editors will defend their outlet. They’ll defend the journalists and try to reach a compromise, arguing that the content does not violate ethical standards or laws, even under Lithuania’s journalistic ethics guidelines.
So, this was a unique moment. The physiognomy trend faced backlash from us, and in that case, it resulted in a pushback. The movement was stalled, at least to some degree.
Jacobsen: Fourteen years ago, when the group was founded, was there a specific catalyst? Was there a cultural event that triggered its creation?
Kvecys: I do not know. I don’t know what the exact catalyst was.
Jacobsen: In North America, you’ll find things like horoscopes in almost every newspaper . From small-town publications to major outlets. Is that also common here?
Kvecys: Yes. Even one of the most prominent media outlets in Lithuania, which had an astrology and horoscope section on its website, removed it a couple of years ago. They issued a statement saying, “We are being responsible; we’ve taken it down” — as if that were enough.
But now it is back. Ownership changed, policies shifted, and the section returned. That shows there’s public demand. There’s a practical need for it, at least from a consumer perspective. The horoscope section is one of the most visited parts of many websites here in Lithuania.
And walk into any shopping mall and check the magazine and newspaper stands. You’ll see publications on witchcraft, horoscopes, astrology, and alternative medicine. It’s everywhere. All the major media outlets carry this type of content . Except for the government-owned outlet. But all the others include horoscope sections, and they’re consistently among the most visited sections.
Jacobsen: What about academic fraud? In two forms:
First, people supporting pseudoscientific products or claims while presenting false credentials , like putting “Doctor,” “MD,” or “PhD” next to their name without having the proper accreditation. Or even worse — a more subtle case — they do have a credential, but it is entirely unrelated to the subject matter.
For example, someone with a doctorate in theology claiming to be “a doctor” in the context of medical or scientific expertise. It’s like the old joke:
A person comes across a car crash. People are yelling, “Please help! I need a doctor!”
Someone runs over shouting, “I’m a doctor! I can help!”
And the person says, “Oh, thank goodness. What should we do first, doctor?”
And the man replies, “Oh — I’m a Doctor of Philosophy.”
“What?”
“Yes, in existentialist philosophy.”
“So… what does it all mean, then?”
[Laughing] So that’s the issue — people assuming that any “doctor” has relevant qualifications. That’s harder for the general public to parse, especially when they have not spent time critically examining pseudoscientific claims. People see the title “doctor” and assume it implies a higher level of analytical capacity or credibility.
Kvecys: People see base credentials — and for the average person, that’s enough.
Jacobsen: The first case is more obvious — straight-up fraud, lying about one’s qualifications. But the second case is more subtle. Yes, the person may have genuine credentials and analytical skills — they may read and write at a high level . But they’re applying those skills inappropriately, or dishonestly, outside their area of expertise.
That can be just as damaging, and much harder to detect. What do you find is more prominent here in Lithuania? Are there any notable cases you’d want to point to?
Kvecys: Actually, I have not heard of any prominent cases in Lithuania that would fit that pattern — where respected researchers or academics veer into quackery as a kind of side interest. Their colleagues ignore it or let it slide. I am not aware of examples like that happening here.
Mainly, there are more critiques of how research is conducted, but not cases of researchers ruthlessly implementing proto-scientific or pseudoscientific ideas into legitimate scientific processes. I have not come across that.
There have been cases involving well-known public figures — people with credentials, or scientists — who enter politics and attempt to influence how things should be done.
But their actions were not based on fraudulent research, as far as I know. There was another case we investigated — not quite the same issue, but still relevant.
It involved how a university failed to vet businesses using its resources properly. So, this happened at Vytautas Magnus University in Kaunas, at its business incubator. One business managed to infiltrate the incubator and benefited from lower rent and access to university-linked resources.
What they were doing was oxygenating tap water — regular cold water — and branding it as “tropospheric water.” They marketed it as if it came from the forest, calling it “tropo water.”
They claimed it was collected through special processes and infused with oxygen. The messaging was: “Drink one glass and it’s like spending three hours in the wilderness — fresh oxygen, full rejuvenation.”
Of course, this was complete charlatanism — a scam. We conducted an investigation, and the business was immediately kicked out of the incubator.
Jacobsen: A perfect case of pseudoscience trying to borrow legitimacy.
Kvecys: They were using the university’s name, facilities, and even scientific language in their marketing.
They said, “We are based at the university,” wore white lab coats, and invoked academic credibility to make it sound like a scientifically grounded product.
Jacobsen: Like those YouTube ads with a guy in a white coat saying, “I’m a doctor.”
Kvecys: Yes — same tactic. They used white coats and university affiliations to give their claims a veneer of legitimacy when, in reality, it was total quackery.
And, as usual, when I traced the founder’s sources, I quickly found that the core ideas were based on the work of a Japanese “scientist” who claimed you could talk to water, infuse it with emotions, and restructure it based on your intent —
That emotionally charged water could influence your body depending on how it was “charged.” You can almost always trace these kinds of pseudoscientific products back to a similar origin. It’s typical.
Jacobsen: When you critique these practices publicly — so you build your case and then present it — how do the people you are criticizing typically react?
Kvecys: Every situation is different. We have not had a considerable number of those cases — it takes time and resources to investigate and build a solid case.
Sometimes we laugh at them and move on. But if we have concrete evidence — something that violates consumer rights, communication laws, or other regulations — then we can pursue it to achieve real change.
Some business owners will immediately message us on Facebook Messenger and say things like, “Stop it.” Or, “I will come after you.” Others, especially those running closed Facebook groups we have investigated, will start posting things like, “We’re being attacked,” or “Someone is chasing us — beware, community.”
They warn their followers but also spin it into a marketing tactic: “Buy more products because we might get shut down!” In some cases, we have received legal threats — letters drafted by lawyers intended to scare us. They say, “Drop the case or we’ll sue you, we’ll impose fines,” and so on.
Jacobsen: Do they ever follow through?
Kvecys: No. It has never gone that far. These are scare tactics. Most of these businesses are relatively small — they do not have much money or legal muscle. And they probably realize that if it went to court, they would lose.
They cannot win based on the facts. So, every case plays out differently. Some people stay silent and keep doing their thing. They do not care. For example, in the physiognomy case , they just continued operating.
They said, “We lost access to one Lithuanian media outlet, but there are twenty others.” And of course, there’s always social media. So they keep going there. But because we are not violating the law , we are pointing out that they are violating ethical standards — it becomes a bit tricky.
And those ethical standards are often higher for institutions like Lithuanian National Television.
Jacobsen: So this raises the question: Should we, in our respective countries, establish a legal context where the benchmark — especially around health claims — is higher than just ethics violations? Should some laws make it illegal to give people false hope, waste their time and money, and steer them away from real, evidence-based treatments? In other words, should this be something considered at the parliamentary level?
Kvecys: In Lithuania, we already have much stricter regulations of health claims compared to countries like the United States or Canada. Far more restrictive. But the issue is not with the policies — it is with enforcement. Very few cases are pursued.
There are not enough resources, either within civil society organizations like ours or within governmental bodies, to track and investigate all these cases. And there is another problem , especially with pseudoscientific services:
People are often ashamed or reluctant to admit they were scammed. Suppose someone tried an alternative treatment and it failed. In that case, they rarely report it — not to authorities, not even to their families. They stay silent.
So we have a lack of resources, no systematic enforcement, and victims who do not come forward. That is the typical situation. The laws are strict, the problem is with enforcement and tracking. There is no proper tracking system in place.
Jacobsen: So they are paperweight laws.
Kvecys: That is right. Most of these scams now live on platforms like Telegram, in closed Facebook groups, or on niche online forums. And they reach vast audiences , spread across Central and Eastern Europe and beyond. Or they’re doing in-person presentations.
However, the problem lies in the fact that government organizations lack a process for creating fake accounts or participating in online forums and closed groups. They do not have the legal right to do that. So they are not monitoring the places where most of this charlatanism is happening.
That is the real issue. Yes, once in a while, they do uncover something — maybe a business here or there — but it is just a fraction of what is going on. A tiny fraction. And I am not talking about borderline ethical issues. I am talking about actual violations of the law — false treatment and cure claims, for instance.
Jacobsen: Is your healthcare system nationalized?
Kvecys: Yes, it is a mixed system. Most of it is public. We have a national health insurance program — essentially a national healthcare system. But there is also a private sector, and the balance between the two is relatively stable.
Jacobsen: Do you coordinate with any scientific associations or societies?
Kvecys: We work with a network of researchers across various fields — philosophy, chemistry, biology, genetics, nutrition, and so on. These are individual scientists, primarily based in Lithuania, who support us when we need expert input to investigate a specific case of potential quackery.
Jacobsen: So not a formal network, but a collaborative one?
Kvecys: Not a formal organization, but individual researchers who are quite willing to help. And yes, we are very grateful for that.
Jacobsen: And they generally share your concerns?
Kvecys: I believe so. There are a few prominent researchers who casually debunk pseudoscientific claims. For example, there’s Gabrielius from Kaunas University — he focuses on exposing fake medical devices. the kind of devices where you touch it with your fingers and it supposedly scans your entire body for diseases.
Jacobsen: Like a Star Trek tricorder.
Kvecys: Or something like that, typical nonsense. So, he casually debunks those kinds of claims. Unfortunately, there are not too many researchers doing that.
Jacobsen: Would you say there’s any particular idea or practice in Lithuania that remains acutely harmful, even after being debunked? Something that continues to affect people despite having been thoroughly disproven?
Kvecys: All of these things have been debunked at some point, but that rarely makes a difference. The core motivations behind why people engage in these practices are not rooted in evidence.
From what I have seen, most of it is about finding a cure for uncertainty. When someone is in a situation where their health is at risk — and there is no straightforward remedy or established procedure — they face overwhelming uncertainty.
They need to resolve that uncertainty somehow. So, whatever reaches them at that moment — whether it is a practice, a device, a supplement, or a so-called medicine — they may embrace it.
Not necessarily because it works, but because it reduces anxiety. For example, consider someone who is unemployed and anxious about finding a job. If they believe that physiognomy lectures will help them “read” their interviewers and gain an edge, it may lower their stress.
It does not help them get hired. But in the short term, if it reduces their uncertainty, it becomes appealing. I am now paraphrasing Stuart Vyse a bit — it is his idea — but I agree with him. You see this dynamic everywhere.
People are simply trying to reduce their anxieties. That is the primary driver. And if something “works” for that — even without evidence — they will continue using it. Even though all of these pseudoscientific ideas have been debunked, people do not respond rationally when they are under stress. You cannot provide meaningful education about charlatanism when someone is in crisis.
Because when people are in real-life situations filled with uncertainty, their cognitive capacity drops. They do not have the time, energy, or resources to engage in critical thinking. They want immediate relief. That is why we focus our efforts on removing misleading information from public platforms —
So that when people do go searching for answers, they are less likely to fall into the trap of quackery and pseudoscience. And hopefully, they find better, evidence-based ways to cope. So I think it is a better route to go , focusing on removing harmful content and redirecting people to better alternatives.
And yes, I did not directly answer your earlier question about one specific harmful idea, because honestly, there are so many. For example, there is an association of Catholic exorcists in Lithuania. That is highly damaging.
People involved in those practices often do not receive real psychological or medical help. They are left untreated or even harmed. Then there was a recent business I found on Facebook. They were selling epoxy pyramids with twisted copper wire inside. It’s essentially a coil, marketed as something that “collects the resonance of the universe.”
At first, the messaging was the usual — spirituality, personal enhancement, vague claims. But after a few rounds of updates, the messaging evolved into cancer treatment. They began claiming that these amulets or talismans could cure first, second, and even third-stage cancer.
That is incredibly dangerous. This points to the broader issue of diversification in pseudoscientific claims. Please make sure to mention this in the interview:
We are living in a moment where multiple layers of uncertainty are converging — climate change, COVID-19, the war in Ukraine, and now the looming threat of a broader conflict in Eastern Europe, plus people’s challenges. That is the backdrop where these anxieties take root.
This is a very uncertain time for Eastern Europeans — and Europeans in general. I see a resurgence of superstitious thinking as people try to cope with that anxiety. So now all the old things are back on the table: red string bracelets, amulets, tarot readings, horoscopes. And they have multiplied by a factor of five, at least. It is prevalent.
Jacobsen: What about collaboration with other skeptic groups? I interviewed Claire Klingenberg a while ago — she works with the European skeptic organizations’ network. Do you take part in that? Do you collaborate with national groups, share ideas, share resources , maybe even have a drink and laugh about the nonsense in your country versus theirs?
Kvecys: In Lithuania, we have two main physical formats for the skeptical community. There’s our annual conference, held on October 13. Then there’s a regular meet-up format — Skeptics’ Meet-Up — where members of our community and others gather to exchange ideas.
Most of the participants are scientists from the network I mentioned earlier. In terms of international cooperation, the biggest issue is that many of the organizations abroad are relatively weak. We are also not in a position to provide enough resources to help strengthen smaller groups.
Without that, there is little motivation for genuine cooperation. Sure, it is fun to go to Sweden, grab a drink, and laugh about the pseudoscience in our respective countries. But when you get down to the practical aspects — regulations, lobbying, policy proposals — each country is very different.
The cultural contexts are different. So I do not see much common ground when it comes to enacting real change on that level. Many of these organizations are too weak for serious, strategic collaboration. That is just the reality. It is different from the Center for Inquiry. That is a stronger organization.
Jacobsen: Very strong. Yes, to be fair, the United States is very focused on its internal issues right now. It has turned inward , not just politically, but also in terms of the skeptical movement. And from what you are saying, the same seems true for Eastern, Northern, and Central Europe.
With the Kremlin’s invasion of Ukraine, the rising anxiety, protests, and instability, skeptical organizations in those regions may be turning more toward local or national concerns , closer to home. It is challenging to get skeptic and humanist groups from different regions to collaborate in a significant way.
Even with funding and structure — like Humanists International — it has been a real challenge to ensure global representation on boards and to sustain international cooperation. It takes a lot of time and effort. And even when progress is made, it can easily stall or fall apart.
Kvecys: Yes, exactly — take the European Skeptics Association. I spoke with them and asked, “What kinds of actions and initiatives are you pursuing?” And their response was, “We host one annual conference — that’s it.” But they should be going after European Union subsidies and building larger-scale projects. Instead, all they do is run that one conference.
So I said, “Okay — if you’re experienced people with connections across Europe and you’re still not finding opportunities to secure proper funding from the European Union — which offers plenty of programs — then what are we supposed to do?”
To apply for these programs, you at least need the resources to participate. But if those organizations are not even attempting to access that support, then what can we do? Maybe we will. Maybe the Lithuanian Skeptics will take that initiative.
So I do not want these efforts to exist merely as a meeting point for exchanging ideas. It is a platform to create real, tangible change.
Jacobsen: That highlights two of the most significant issues in most secular or freethought organizations. The first is the challenge of regional and international cooperation. That isn’t easy. And the second is succession planning. When someone decides they are done — either because of term limits or burnout — or when there is a formal rotation every few years, there needs to be a proper transfer of leadership.
If a group is built around a personality — like the James Randi Foundation — it may thrive for a time. But when that person steps back, the organization’s influence can quickly fade, despite the legacy they leave behind.
Kvecys: I think all organizations have to build in both of those aspects. You need a charismatic or visionary leader of some sort — yes. But you also need a strong institutional foundation to support that person and survive beyond them.
If an organization lacks that deeper structure, it simply will not have a lasting impact. I am not thrilled about how involved Richard Dawkins is in the Center for Inquiry right now. It feels like too much is centred on one individual.
That level of personal branding can overshadow the broader purpose of the organization. Even for me, it is a bit much.
Jacobsen: I gather and tell the stories — I do not control them.
Kvecys: Right. It’s just… too much focus on him, I think.
Jacobsen: Final question — more about personality. Last night I was walking around, having something to eat, picking up some groceries, and I ended up hanging out at whatI would describe as a Lithuanian rock concert. What was with all the Dalai Lama posters everywhere? I think I saw a Buddhist monk. So, the background , I do not want to over-interpret that, but of the religious leaders, he is one of the least problematic.
Kvecys: It’s more about the context. The Dalai Lama is expected to announce a successor — someone who would be the next Dalai Lama after him. So, there is both a political and religious context behind it. We have a small Buddhist community here. There is a Tibetan Square in Užupis — just a couple of hundred meters from where you were.
Jacobsen: That’s probably why I saw that guy. He was in Buddhist robes, had a shaved head — very European-looking — and he was wearing sneakers. I loved that.
Kvecys: Yes, we have a few Buddhists here. Tibetan Square exists, and that explains the posters and the imagery you saw. That’s the context.
Jacobsen: What are your favourite skeptic quotes or literature you would recommend to others?
Kvecys: Let me say this — Yuval Noah Harari once wrote:
“You could never convince a monkey to give you a banana by promising him limitless bananas after death in monkey heaven.”
And for literature, I highly recommend a book by Kateryna Zorya. The title is The Government Used to Hide the Truth, But Now We Can Speak.
It is a fantastic book , insightful. Anyone who wants to understand how Soviet and post-Soviet esotericism, New Age thinking, and quackery have evolved in Ukraine, Belarus, and the Baltic states should read it.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Kvecys.
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): 2025/08/09
Dr. Steve Pearlman, founder of The Critical Thinking Institute, discusses the urgent need to teach authentic critical thinking skills based on how the brain naturally processes information. He distinguishes between System 1 (fast, automatic thinking) and System 2 (deliberate, analytical thinking), emphasizing the value of metacognition and domain-specific expertise. Pearlman critiques superficial critical thinking programs and warns against indiscriminate policy cuts, such as those from the Department of Governmental Efficiency. He advocates for reasoning over authority in education and relationships, noting that even modest improvements in decision-making—like a 5% gain—can radically transform lives and institutions over time. Find out more here: http://www.thectinstitute.com.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we’re here with Dr. Steve Pearlman. He’s an educator, author, and founder of The Critical Thinking Institute.
He holds a Ph.D. in English from Indiana University of Pennsylvania and previously co-founded one of the first higher education programs in the United States focused solely on teaching critical thinking across disciplines. With over three decades of experience in higher education, he has developed and implemented methods to enhance reasoning and decision-making skills for students, faculty, and professionals across academic, military, and corporate sectors. Pearlman is the creator of the Neurocognitive Learning approach to critical thinking and host of The Critical Thinking Institute Podcast. His work focuses on the practical application of critical thinking for individuals and institutions. Thank you so much for joining me today. I appreciate it, Steve.
Dr. Steve Pearlman: It’s my pleasure—thanks for having me.
Jacobsen: Critical thinking can be a meaningful concept or just a buzzword. How are we defining it, technically?
Pearlman: Yes. Unfortunately, critical thinking is more often a buzzword than a meaningful practice. People throw it around as if it’s something easy to define.
But we have research on this. When we ask people—including educators who are supposed to teach it—to define critical thinking, we usually get vague catchphrases and little substance.
When we ask them to define catchphrases like “analyzing” or “thinking outside the box,” things start to fall apart. It’s very difficult for people to define those concepts clearly or consistently.
Take “thinking outside the box,” for example. It sounds good. But is any idea valuable just because it’s different or unconventional? Is that really what makes something a product of critical thinking?
I could devise an unconventional solution to world hunger—like hunting dinosaurs—but that’s not thoughtful or useful.
So, we take a very different approach at The Critical Thinking Institute. We’ve left the catchphrases behind. We look at critical thinking from a foundational perspective—what the thinking act is. We even consider it from an evolutionary standpoint, asking what thinking evolved to do and how we can harness that understanding to improve reasoning in real, measurable ways.
We also identified the core systems that run in our brains, no matter what we think. How do we teach people to become self-aware of those core systems? And then, how do we teach people to maximize their use of those core systems? That’s essentially the Neurocognitive Learning method. That’s how we approach critical thinking.
What we call it is a metacognitive process. Metacognition is a fancy word for being aware of your thinking while you’re thinking. So, we teach people to recognize what their brain is trying to do when it thinks and, therefore, take control of that process and do it better.
Jacobsen: You’ve done some work on healthy relationships. What defines a healthy relationship, and what are the top two skills people should consider?
Pearlman: Yes. A healthy relationship doesn’t mean a perfect relationship. It’s not necessarily about being ideal or even “successful” by some external standard. However, it is a relationship in which people respect one another.
So, the two most important things to remember for a healthy relationship are respect for one another and empathy for the other person’s position, boundaries, and needs.
The second is communication. Most relationships fall into trouble because both parties hold different expectations and lack sufficient communication and dialogue around those expectations. So, we want to focus our healthy relationship strategies on that.
Of course, if we can think critically with our partner, that makes it even easier.
Jacobsen: Now, when discussing respect, what does that look like?
Pearlman: It’s easy to identify moments of disrespect. That’s when someone’s needs are not being met, they’re not being heard, or they’ve voiced something important, but the other person isn’t listening. Or they’re constantly being talked over in conversation. So, respect is the opposite of that.
Respect means wanting to understand the other person’s needs. It doesn’t mean you can always meet all those needs perfectly, but it means wanting to understand them and doing your best to meet and honour them. Respect boundaries where they exist. Respect needs, desires, and interests. Support the person in whatever their interests are, and so forth.
I don’t even love the term compromise, though we often use it in the context of healthy relationships. Compromise can suggest that we’re constantly giving in to one another. Compromise is a part of any relationship, but the most successful relationships aren’t about tallying who gave in more. They’re about seeing the relationship as a team effort, where both partners work together toward each other’s success.
That’s a different way to think about it, and that mindset shift greatly affects how people approach their role in a relationship. If we tell people they must make many compromises, we get into a scoreboard mentality: “I made seven compromises; you only made three.” Or, “I made four big compromises—how dare you not meet me halfway?”
Instead, if we look at it as a team effort—about supporting one another’s interests—then it becomes less about compromising and more about mutual support, finding things we can do together that make both of us happy at the same time.
Jacobsen: You’ve also done work in situations where things haven’t just become unhealthy but have crossed into abuse. How do you apply critical thinking in that context?
Pearlman: We teach people through online courses. I used to run these kinds of courses on sexual assault prevention and similar topics.
Most of what we taught were not physical techniques. We focused on things akin to what’s sometimes called verbal judo—the ability to manage a conversation, deflect it, or steer it in a way that either de-escalates the situation or allows the person to get out of a sticky or dangerous scenario.
We teach other preventive strategies, but one key feature is knowing how to communicate in a way that gives you more control over the situation. That’s where critical thinking comes into play—when we have an expectation that isn’t met, the brain experiences conflict.
Our brains operate through frameworks—it’s how we navigate situations. However, each person has their framework that they apply.
Here’s an example we use based on a real story someone shared with us: A young woman went to another guy’s apartment, and things started to become problematic. The standard and correct thing is to say no and assert boundaries. And we advocate for that. Everyone should feel empowered to set and express clear boundaries.
But in some cases, that does not stop a would-be rapist—because, unfortunately, some perpetrators expect resistance, and they’ve already worked around that expectation. So when the woman in this situation said “no,” and it didn’t work—and the man started to become more physical—she remembered something we covered in our training videos: If you do not give a direct resistant response, then the other person may not experience the situation as resistance, and therefore, may not escalate their behaviour further.
So, instead of resisting in a way that would meet his expected framework, she changed the framework entirely. She said, “Hey, listen, I’ve got to go to the bathroom first.”
She ran to the bathroom, locked the door, and immediately texted her friends to come pick her up and bang on the guy’s door. She stayed in the bathroom for about ten minutes. Eventually, her friends arrived, knocked loudly on the door, and she was able to get out safely.
She did that by applying critical thinking—not by resisting or complying but by changing the situation’s structure. Instead of meeting the aggressor in his expected script, she used deflection and delay to create an escape.
Critical thinking can offer that in high-stakes, real-world situations. It’s the ability to understand how the brain—yours and sometimes someone else’s—processes a moment and then uses that insight to navigate toward a better outcome. Often, that outcome is mutual. In a case like this, it’s about safety and survival.
Jacobsen: Can you quickly explain the difference between System 1 and System 2 thinking? That’s from the late Daniel Kahneman.
Pearlman: The brain has two general thinking systems.
System 1 is the fast system we use for rapid decision-making. It is instinctive—essentially a survivalist mechanism. So, often, when we’re in a fight-flight, freeze, or fawn response, we’re operating in System 1. It also includes automatic processes—things we’ve committed to memory to the point where we no longer have to think actively about them.
System 2, on the other hand, is the slow, effortful, deliberate, and critical thinking system. It’s where conscious reasoning and deeper analysis happen.
It’s possible—and sometimes positive—to move things from System 2 into System 1. For example, it can become automatic when we learn a skill thoroughly. However, the problem is that once something enters System 1, we often stop thinking about it altogether—even when we should revisit it, especially if it concerns values, beliefs, or assumptions. Those automatic responses become the frameworks we use to act on the world.
So, what we do at The Critical Thinking Institute is to help people recognize when their brains are relying too heavily on System 1 and how to shift into System 2 deliberately. The brain wants to resolve things quickly—uncertainty threatens it. Even though it’s capable of deep thought, the brain prefers efficiency and predictability.
If System 1 can resolve uncertainty with a conclusion it feels is “good enough,” it will do so because that serves its job: keeping us safe and stable. But that is not always the most effective way to think—especially about complex or importantissues. So, learning how to pull your brain out of System 1 and engage System 2 is essential.
Jacobsen: Are there people—besides those working in fields like Bayesian reasoning or quantum mechanics—genuinely do not feel fear or stress around high or even medium levels of uncertainty?
Pearlman: It depends. Some people embrace uncertainty more than others, but it’s less about intelligence or field and more about their capacity to entertain uncertainty as play.
There’s some fascinating research around this. For example, if we tell students they have an upcoming test, they almost instinctively interpret that as a threat. Even students who’ve studied well often have a fear-based response—concern about their grades, the unknown questions, performance, etc.
Now, let’s take students with test anxiety. They especially view the test through a lens of threat and uncertainty. But we see a shift if we work with them to reframe the situation—not as a threat, but as a challenge. How do we do that? By walking them through the tools they already have: study skills, prior successes, preparation techniques, etc.
When students focus on what they can do, they view the test as a challenge rather than a danger. Once that shift happens, they can engage more playfully and productively with the material—even while facing uncertainty.
That’s the key difference between people who can operate well in high-uncertainty environments and those who struggle. It’s not about eliminating uncertainty—it’s about interpreting it as something to be embraced rather than feared. Do I see it as a challenge I have the tools to face or as a threat to my identity or well-being?
Even physicists—who are perfectly at home dealing with the uncertainty of quantum mechanics, knowing they might never resolve their questions in a lifetime—can feel threatened in different contexts. Something like going to a party, for instance, might trigger more anxiety in them than contemplating the probabilistic nature of particles.
Pearlman: It depends on the field, thoughts, and the person.
Jacobsen: Yes. So, it’s less about being ensconced in a mindset and more about a trained orientation.
Pearlman: Everything with the brain and thinking is habitual to a certain extent. It’s about what we habituate ourselves to. And it also has a lot to do with how we’re raised. That makes a significant difference. The epigenetics of how we rear children is incredibly interesting.
For example, if children are raised in a more authoritarian household—where they’re expected to obey because Mom or Dad says so—and when they ask, “Why do I have to do it that way?” the answer is, “Because I told you to,” then we see clear developmental consequences. Research shows that children from those environments ask fewer questions in school and life. They also typically demonstrate less critical thinking, especially early on.
By contrast, children raised in more intellectually engaged households—where reasons are given and policies, decisions, and expectations are discussed—tend to become students who ask more questions, are more comfortable with ambiguity, and demonstrate stronger reasoning skills. This is unsurprising, but it’s important to recognize—and we have solid research to support it.
There’s a strong argument for raising children in ways where reason prevails over authority. That doesn’t mean we must negotiate everything with our kids—it’s not about constant negotiation. It’s about allowing reason to guide the process.
So, for example, if you say to your child, “It’s 9:00 PM—time for bed,” and the child asks, “Why do I have to go to bed at 9:00? Why is that my bedtime? Why do you get to decide?”—you might respond with something like:
“It’s not just about us deciding. When you stay up past 9:00 on school nights, you have trouble getting up for school the next morning. School is important, so getting to bed on time helps with that. That’s why bedtime is 9:00.”
Then the child might say, “That makes sense.” The outcome is the same—they go to bed at 9:00—but through a completely different thinking process.
Now, maybe the child responds, “Wait a second—it’s the State of the Union address tonight. I want to stay up and watch it because we will discuss it in class tomorrow.”
That’s a good reason. In that case, the child should stay up later. What the child learns in that moment is that reason prevails in your household—not blind authority.
Jacobsen: Speaking of authority, we now have the American administration—specifically a second Trump administration—with the newly minted Department of Governmental Efficiency. However, “minted” might not be the right word since it’s a restructured version of a previous department. Most government institutions, large or small, have some inefficiency—that’s just the nature of systems. So, the premise itself is not entirely unreasonable.
When you critically assess the definition of waste concerning the Department of Governmental Efficiency in the United States, how do they propose defining waste and fraud? What is your critical assessment of the quality of those definitions—either implicit or explicit—and the efficiency of weeding this stuff out, of extirpating it?
Pearlman: As you said, the premise is sound. There certainly can be waste in government—potentially considerable—which should be evaluated continuously.
But here’s the reality: we’re spending less on federal employees than twenty years ago. That number has been consistently declining in the United States, not increasing.
Now, that’s a different part of the question because there may still be waste in other areas that need to be addressed—and it’s certainly not just about employee salaries. The Department of Governmental Efficiency (DOGE) is approaching this indiscriminately.
Take, for example, the idea of defunding scientific research—like cutting funds from the NIH. That has hugeramifications. You’re not just saving money in the short term; you’re potentially costing the country far more in the long term.
Let’s consider the cost-benefit of research into treatments for Parkinson’s disease. Many promising experiments were underway and have since been shut down. These aren’t things you can restart overnight. It will take years to reboot that work, assuming it even gets revived.
Now think about the cost of caring for people with Parkinson’s over time—relative to the cost of continuing those experiments. It’s potentially far more expensive not to fund that research.
You can also extrapolate that same logic to other federal agencies and programs.
So, while stopping funding looks good on a budget line in the short term, it may cost taxpayers much more in the long term. Any decision about cuts should involve a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis.
However, we don’t see evidence that such an analysis drives DOGE’s efforts. On the contrary, they’re cutting indiscriminately without a strategic or evidence-based framework.
So the real question becomes: are these cuts made intelligently, or are they made for the sake of making cuts?
Unfortunately, it appears to be the latter, not the former.
Jacobsen: So the chainsaw metaphor is apt?
Pearlman: Yes. The now-famous image of Elon Musk holding up a chainsaw at CPAC—used as a metaphor for DOGE—is quite appropriate.
It’s a great metaphor because chainsaws don’t build anything. They just cut things down. They’re powerful tools for destruction.
We get that, especially in Texas. But chainsaws aren’t good for nuanced work. They’re certainly not designed for careful restructuring or system improvement.
And that’s exactly what DOGE is doing—cutting indiscriminately. There’s no subtlety. No long-term strategic vision. Just destruction.
And there are problems with chainsaws. The chain can snap and injure you. It can kick back and cut you. So we can extend that metaphor to DOGE—because a chainsaw is exactly what they’re using.
Yes, cuts are necessary. But wouldn’t we prefer them to be surgical? Wouldn’t we prefer a precise scalpel that corrects what needs correcting?
Instead, we’re seeing a chainsaw, which can only amputate. It cannot repair a limb. So, if you want a metaphor, the surgical one works far better.
Jacobsen: Is there something we can apply from the critical thinking methods you teach regarding domain-specific expertise? I’m thinking of the expertise involved in startups—like administration and selling a vision—instead of expertise in bureaucracy, finance, or accounting. Do you think that’s part of the core issue with the Department of Governmental Efficiency—not the premise, but the application?
Pearlman: No—it’s not a matter of domain-specific expertise. It’s more a matter of domain-specific inexpertise.
In other words, it’s not just that they lack the right expertise—it’s that they operate from the wrong premise. The flawed premise is that simply cutting for the sake of cutting is inherently valuable and that downsizing is good in and of itself.
We’re seeing decisions being made to trim down agencies by arbitrary percentages, regardless of what those agencies do. There’s no way they’ve meaningfully reviewed the operations of all these departments.
So, before we even get to questions about domain-specific competence, we must address that they operate from a fundamentally flawed principle. Cutting for its own sake is not inherently good. It can be costly and dangerous.
Yes—some cuts may be necessary. But they need to be strategic. Otherwise, we’re left with reckless amputations that hurt the very systems they’re meant to improve.
Jacobsen: What are the long-term consequences of a lack of critical thinking—for an individual or an organization?
Pearlman: That’s a great question. For an organization, the typical outcome is failure—the end of the organization.
Think about it: nothing more important to any business or institution than how effectively it can observe what’s going on in its environment—how well it understands its customers and clients’ needs, its competition, and the broader trends in the world. Based on that understanding, it has to make adjustments, solve problems, and make sound decisions.
That’s how an organization stays viable. That’s how it survives—and thrives.
It has to be nimble, responsive, and grounded in good reasoning.
Pearlman: So, critical thinking is the most important thing. Companies that stop thinking—or become stagnant—are the ones that typically disappear. They die off because they’re no longer able to compete intellectually.
You see this often in the tech world, where it happens quickly. Take Yahoo, for example. Yahoo used to be the dominant search engine. It was the biggest in the world for a time.
But then they got out-thought by Google. And now, Yahoo isn’t even on most people’s radar as a search engine. They’ve pivoted to offer other services, but the core dominance they once had is long gone. That’s how fast innovation can shift—and if you’re not continuously thinking critically and adapting, you fall behind.
In life, it’s the same general principle. Now, we don’t usually die from poor decisions—though tragically, that can happen in extreme cases. But more often, the cost is Bunfulfilled potential.
We fail to live the kind of lives we want to live. This might show up in our careers, parenting, social lives, and more.
There’s some fascinating research on this. They’ve found that IQ is not the biggest differentiator regarding the quality of decisions people make. Critical thinking is.
IQ—your raw processing power—can be high. But you won’t use that processing power effectively without learning critical thinking skills. Critical thinking is a skill set—just like reading or math. It has to be taught. It has to be practiced.
And the data is clear: critical thinking is a far more powerful predictor of who makes successful or damaging life decisions than raw intelligence alone.
But here’s the problem—most people never get taught dedicated critical thinking skills.
So now imagine this: say someone did learn critical thinking, and that skill helped them make just 5% better decisions. That’s a humble number—very conservative. Let’s not even say 75% or 90% better decisions. Let’s say 5%.
Imagine if starting in adolescence, you made just 5% better decisions every day of your life. Think about where you’d be today. Even if you’re in a good place now, think how much better things might be.
That 5% course correction—compounded over years—would dramatically shift the trajectory of your life. And that’s the promise of critical thinking. With even modest improvements to the quality of our decisions, we could live very different—and often far better—lives.
Jacobsen: One last question. What do you think about philosophical or so-called critical thinking programs that are sold or advocated as such—but aren’t? Some present themselves in subtle or nuanced ways that appear to teach critical thinking, but there’s a kind of linguistic misdirection. They seem like they’re offering something rigorous when, in fact, they’re not.
Pearlman: There are a lot of well-intentioned programs out there. But they often rely on catchphrases and buzzwords to bring it full circle.
Some programs focus on problem-solving processes—different step-by-step paths to solutions, sometimes with built-in stages for revisiting ideas. These can be useful.
However, I recommend caution with critical thinking programs that approach the brain from the outside. By that, I mean they start with a constructed model or process of what critical thinking should look like and then try to train your brain to follow that process.
That can be useful in limited situations. For example, knowing the scientific method, an important structure, is helpful. But what we do—and where real critical thinking flourishes—is different.
We start by understanding how the brain naturally thinks. We make people aware of that and then build on those innate neurological processes. We amplify and elevate what the brain already does when thinking critically, and that’s where real growth happens. That’s where authentic critical thinking skills develop—not by forcing the brain to mimic some external pattern, but by working with its built-in architecture.
Jacobsen: Dr. Pearlman, any final thoughts?
Pearlman: No—I think we covered a lot. That was wonderful.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Steve.
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): 2025/08/08
Leon Langdon, Advocacy Officer at Humanists International, has served for nearly two years. He holds a law degree from Ireland and a Master’s in International Relations from NYU. While at NYU, he interned at the UN Counter-Terrorism Directorate and worked on humanitarian and geopolitical issues as part of Malta’s Security Council mission. After attending a humanist wake, he joined Humanists International in September 2023. He now advocates at the UN for freedom of religion or belief, secular governance, and expression. Langdon describes his path from law in Ireland and international relations studies at NYU to interning at the UN. After attending a humanist wake, he joined Humanists International in September 2023 as Advocacy Officer. He outlines the structured UN advocacy process, which involves drafting statements based on Special Rapporteur reports and member consultations, reviewing them internally, and delivering speeches. His priorities include freedom of religion or belief, secular governance, human rights, and supporting global humanists at risk worldwide.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What is your current title?
Leon Langdon: Leon Langdon, Advocacy Officer at Humanists International.
Jacobsen: How long have you been here?
Langdon: I have been here for just under two years.
Jacobsen: What did you do before?
Langdon: I previously worked at the United Nations Security Council with the Permanent Mission of Malta during their elected term on the Council.
Jacobsen: How was that?
Langdon: A lot of fun—intense, but engaging work.
Jacobsen: So, how did you get involved in humanist and human rights advocacy—and, in a way, geopolitics?
Langdon: My background is in law—I have a law degree from Ireland. After taking a year out, I was fortunate to receive scholarships that allowed me to pursue a Master’s degree in International Relations at New York University. While at NYU, I interned at the UN Counter-Terrorism Executive Directorate (CTED). Following that, I secured a position at the Permanent Mission of Malta to the United Nations, where I worked during their tenure on the Security Council, focusing on humanitarian and geopolitical issues across multiple regions.
I debated extensively in school and university, which gave me my first glimpse into global affairs and political thought. I kept that up through college. Before joining Humanists International, I had not been deeply involved in humanism. I joined the organization in September 2023. I recall mentioning during my interview that I had attended one humanist funeral, which was my first real exposure to humanist values.
Jacobsen: So it was a wake—a humanist wake?
Langdon: Yes. Being Irish, I grew up immersed in Catholic traditions—pilgrimages, retreats, that kind of thing. While I still respect those experiences, I no longer hold them in the same regard.
That brings me to where I am today. I have now spent nearly two years advocating at the UN on behalf of Humanists International, focusing on defending and promoting humanist values and human rights, particularly where they intersect—freedom of religion or belief, secular governance, and freedom of expression.
Jacobsen: There is a phrase from Ireland: “You don’t lick it off the rocks.” That applies well here. More seriously, at the UN, what does humanist advocacy look like, procedurally? Especially considering how formal and secure the environment is.
Langdon: Yes, the UN system is very structured. There are hundreds of NGOs in consultative status with the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), which enables them to engage formally with UN bodies, such as the Human Rights Council. Some NGOs are highly active and independent, while others are more closely aligned with governments.
Humanists International is proudly independent and represents over 120 member organizations worldwide. We primarily engage at the Human Rights Council in Geneva and the UN in New York, advocating on core issues such as freedom of religion or belief, the rights of non-religious individuals, bodily autonomy, and secularism.
Our priorities are set through resolutions passed by our democratic membership, either at our General Assembly or through guidance from the Board of Directors. These inform the statements we deliver at the UN, the side events we co-sponsor, and the lobbying we do with diplomats and UN officials.
With Humanists International having been founded in 1952, and our first UN advocacy efforts officially beginning in 1959, although we suspect they started earlier, with some archival gaps, we have a long history at the UN to draw upon. Within that history, you see us working consistently on the right to freedom of religion or belief, dating back to the UN in the 1960s and 1970s, which included defending the rights of atheists to exist and be included within the international human rights framework. Today, that work has become more nuanced, addressing the position of the non-religious in discussions around countering religious hatred or participating in multifaith initiatives.
We also work on issues that matter deeply to our members, such as discrimination against LGBTI+ individuals, women’s rights, sexual and reproductive health rights, and the rights of the child, where we have historically had a strong presence. In addition to these, a wide range of issues are brought to us by our member organizations—sometimes on an ad hoc basis—as well as other core issues I am probably forgetting at the moment.
Jacobsen: How do you prepare a speech? How do you make sure the facts are correct? Moreover, how do you craft the speech so that it fits within the allotted time?
Langdon: As you will know, the allotted speaking time is usually quite short when delivering statements at the UN—and to add, those statements are the tip of the iceberg of our advocacy.
Statements are 90 seconds or two minutes long. Even that is increasingly under pressure due to changes in how the UN manages speaking time. As for drafting them, the process often begins with the agenda items set by the UN, particularly those of the Human Rights Council. We frequently respond to reports from Special Rapporteurs—high-level UN experts who report on thematic or country-specific issues. Reading their reports is typically the first step.
We then reach out to our member organizations or individuals connected to cases in the relevant countries. This helps us gauge both the accuracy of the UN’s reports—which are typically well-researched—and the local context. We also examine government responses and consult the work of other NGOs, as well as independent journalists, to gain a deeper understanding of the situation on the ground.
Internally, we rely on our Casework and Campaigns Manager and our Research Officer. They work diligently on the Freedom of Thought Report, which provides a consistent, factual basis for much of our advocacy.
Using all of that—first-hand accounts, verified reports, and trusted collaborations—we draft the statement. It typically goes through several rounds of review between me and our Director of Advocacy, Dr. Elizabeth O’Casey. Once we are both satisfied, it becomes the final version to be delivered.
Ideally, we are present in Geneva to deliver the statement ourselves. However, equally valuable, sometimes even more so, is when one of our member organizations nominates someone to give it, particularly when the issue is very close to their personal experience or pertains to their national context.
Jacobsen: What are you primarily advocating for at the UN? Is it about humanists under threat? Are they secular issues? Is it broader than human rights? What are the central issues you keep getting called upon for, on behalf of humanists?
Langdon: It all revolves around human rights. That is the foundation of our work—advocating for the universal application of international human rights standards.
It would be misleading to say it is only one issue. We often raise individual cases at the UN, but we are cautious about how we do that. We work strictly on a consent basis. That means we always consult with the individual concerned or, if necessary, their family—especially when we are not directly in touch with the person. We ensure that raising their case publicly at the UN level is safe and beneficial for them. Attention from the international community can be powerful, but it must never come at the expense of someone’s well-being or security.
However, secondly, it must be helpful. We do not want to raise cases just for the sake of saying we did it. We want to ensure that there is a potential positive outcome we can work toward. That is our approach when it comes to humanists at risk.
More broadly, we address a wide range of issues. For example, we recently worked on the right to identify as a humanist in Indonesia. We partnered with our Italian member organization on sexual and reproductive health, access to abortion, and LGBTI+ rights and equality in Italy. We have also worked on defending the right to freedom of religion or belief and on civil society space across multiple countries—issues our members continually urge us to focus on.
Our Hungarian and Zambian members have been active in this space. Our Ghanaian members have expressed deep concern over developments in their country, particularly regarding LGBTI+ rights, and we have been called to support advocacy efforts there. Across Europe, we are also seeing signs of democratic backsliding, and we raise attention to that where necessary.
Additionally, we occasionally work on advancing international human rights treaties. For instance, we recently called on Norway to ratify a key international human rights convention. So, no two days are the same, and no two member organizations have precisely the same priorities, even though the underlying values they share are consistent.
Jacobsen: What kind of counter-statements do you get in response to your statements?
Langdon: Fortunately, some responses are positive. For example, earlier this year, we delivered a statement during the interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief. We thanked her for explicitly including the plight of atheists and humanists in Hungary in her report, following her meeting with two of our member organizations there. She thanked us in return, which was a welcome gesture.
In that same statement, we also highlighted the need for legal remedies for individuals who have experienced torture based on their religion or belief. While that specific point was not fully addressed in her report, she welcomed our input and acknowledged its importance.
In the same session, we stated the dialogue with the UN Secretary-General’s Special Representative on Violence Against Children. She had spoken about working with faith leaders against practices like child marriage and female genital mutilation, which we support. However, we raised a question about her engagement with the Vatican, which had only been mentioned briefly in her report. We asked about the progress made in that regard, and she responded critically to our question—it was not a particularly warm reaction.
We also know that some governments are not pleased when we shine a spotlight on human rights abuses in their countries. While they might not issue formal counter-statements, we often receive private feedback indicating their discontent. It is a delicate balance—we always act in the interest of human rights, but we are aware of the political sensitivities involved.
Jacobsen: What about allies? Which other organizations at the UN are at a similar level—those that may not be explicitly humanist but are humanistic in practice or orientation?
Langdon: To be honest, there are only a handful. Moreover, we are, by far, the predominant organization explicitly representing the non-religious and humanist perspective at the UN. That said, we do work alongside human rights NGOs whose work aligns with ours on key issues, even if they do not identify as humanist. These partnerships are vital, especially when we coordinate joint statements or co-host events on shared priorities, such as freedom of expression, secularism, or reproductive rights.
That is a better, more diplomatic way to put it. However, yes, we are the predominant organization working from a humanist perspective at the UN. There are also a handful of atheist organizations; however, our specific viewpoint is not widely represented, apart from through Humanists International. As a result, our allies often differ from us in origin or mandate.
We collaborate with other organizations that focus on similar issues, including LGBTI+ rights, women’s rights, equality, and non-discrimination. However, we also collaborate with some religious organizations, representatives of religious minorities, or groups that approach these issues from a different philosophical or theological perspective. What unites us is a shared commitment to the right to freedom of religion or belief for all, including humanists and the non-religious.
Jacobsen: What are some of the more obscure issues you have brought up at the UN? They matter enough to be mentioned there, but not enough to be raised regularly.
Langdon: The diplomatic answer is that everything is equally important. However, realistically, yes, some issues are more specific—either to particular contexts or to individual countries.
One example, which might not sound obscure at first, is something we recently raised for the first time: the role of religious leaders in conflict and post-conflict settings. It is backed by excellent research and grounded in common sense—religious leaders are highly influential. They often have trusted voices in their communities and hold significant moral authority.
We called on religious leaders, particularly those operating in humanitarian, conflict, or post-conflict environments, to use their influence to uphold international humanitarian law and international human rights law, especially in defence of women’s rights. There is credible research indicating that, in some instances, religious leaders have not always utilized their influence constructively in these contexts.
So, recognizing the power and presence of religion while also emphasizing that such influence comes with responsibilities is a relatively new area of advocacy for us. Whether it is less important than other issues—that is for you to decide.
Jacobsen: What are the common articles, conventions, treaties, or declarations you tend to reference in your work at the UN?
Langdon: Anything we can get our hands on, frankly. However, we often start with one of the foundational documents—the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 18 guarantees the right to freedom of religion or belief for all, including humanists and the non-religious.
We also reference binding treaties, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which entered into force in 1976. Article 18 of that covenant likewise protects the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion or belief. These documents form the bedrock of our arguments, and we use them to demonstrate that rights for the non-religious are already embedded in the international framework—they need to be respected and enforced.
Article 19 talks about freedom of expression—both it and Article 18 are fundamental rights to us. Some of the other core human rights treaties we regularly reference include the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). Both are vital in exploring the intersections between religion and non-religion, as well as the rights of women and children, areas that Humanists International has worked on for decades.
Beyond these international instruments, we also analyze national laws and constitutions, comparing them against global standards. We frequently rely on the Rabat Plan of Action, which emerged from UN processes in 2011 and 2012. It has proven to be a fantastic resource, and we continue to advocate for its implementation.
Resolution 16/18 on countering religious hatred at the UN Human Rights Council is another key framework for us. We also regularly draw on the reports of UN Special Rapporteurs—both recent and historic—as they form an essential part of customary international law and evidence-based human rights monitoring.
Jacobsen: Are there ever times when you find it challenging to reconcile UN values and bureaucracy with humanism as a life stance when advocating for it? Is there ever a point of tension, or is it mostly smooth sailing?
Langdon: I think the core values underpinning both the UN and the international human rights framework—and humanism—are very aligned. Both are grounded in the idea of human dignity for all, equality, and non-discrimination. Both ultimately aim to allow people to live their lives freely, happily, and healthily. That is my perspective, at least.
Where it becomes difficult is the procedural bureaucracy of the UN. You have 193 member states around the table—plus observer states —and several hundred NGOs with consultative status, all looking to participate. Moreover, that is just the official list; there are also many more actors working informally, behind the scenes, for better or worse.
One thing you have to get used to in this field is that things take time, often a long time. You have to be okay with the idea that the results of your efforts might not appear for months, or more likely, years. Sometimes you may never see them in your lifetime. However, that does not mean the work is any less critical in the present moment.
Over the past two years, and more broadly, over the last seven years of advocacy by Humanists International at the UN level, we have seen some tangible results. However, we also recognize it is a constant struggle—a long-term, uphill battle. Moreover, while we might wish for faster progress, the enduring nature of the work is what gives it weight. That is okay.
Jacobsen: What has been your most frustrating experience with the UN?
Langdon: Last year, I spoke to you about the return of Resolution 53/1, which reintroduced the concept of blasphemy at the UN. That was incredibly frustrating. Since 2011, we have had what was admittedly an imperfect but essential consensus between the major actors in the freedom of religion or belief space, primarily the European Union and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). A delicate balance was maintained between the two blocs, with the United States also playing a significant role.
The agreement was that there would be two key resolutions: one on freedom of religion or belief, led by the European Union, and another on countering religious hatred—Resolution 16/18—led by the OIC. That arrangement was not perfect, but it was a hard-fought, diplomatically negotiated structure that held for over a decade. It took years of effort by people who are far more experienced than I am—people who worked for decades to get both resolutions to the table. So the fact that we maintained consensus on both for more than ten years was quite remarkable.
Now, I would like to preface this by saying that the consensus has returned, and we are pleased to see that. We are also advocating for both resolutions to be modernized and made more comprehensive. However, in 2023, we saw the non-renewal of the 16/18 resolution. Instead, Resolution 53/1 was introduced—an explicit condemnation of blasphemy, which, from our perspective and that of many international legal experts and UN representatives, is not in line with international human rights law.
That was particularly frustrating because of the way UN procedures and timelines operate. We often receive very little notice when such resolutions are tabled, so we had to mobilize quickly. Unfortunately, we were not successful in stopping Resolution 53/1 in 2023. However, when an attempt was made to reintroduce it in 2024, we were better prepared. Perhaps it was the groundwork we laid the year before, but this time we managed to brief over 100 states on the issue.
As a result, the OIC withdrew their proposed resolution, and as of 2025, both of the historic resolutions from 2011—on freedom of religion or belief and on countering religious hatred—are back on the table. That imperfect but necessary balance has been restored, and we strongly support this outcome.
That said, we also want to see the consensus strengthened and expanded. Ideally, we want a more holistic and consistently rights-based understanding of freedom of religion or belief—one that includes humanists and the non-religious, and respects international human rights standards across the board.
Jacobsen: Thank you very much for your time today.
Langdon: No worries.
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): 2025/07/26
I knew someone.
They travelled to Ghana.
We talked about LGBTI people.
They mentioned individuals who are LGBTI are against traditional values of Ghana.
“They can just leave.”
“What about those fighting for their equality and rights as LGBTI people in Ghana?”
“They can leave.”
Following this, the conversation became a basis for condemning individuals for who they are, fighting for their equality, and to stereotyping LGBTI as a thing of, essentially, Westerners, because they “don’t care about them” — except, of course, when they fight for their rights in a country.
I only hear these, typically, in North America from Evangelical Protestant Christians and one sector of ultra-conservative Catholics.
Those types of conversations are instructive. Many still view items from a particularist ethical lens rather than universal application.
Be kind,
stay gentle,
don’t coerce or force,
each has their path,
how would you feel if someone tried to change you in like manner?
Probe,
ask soft questions,
look for self-reflective capacities,
limit to a nudge here and there, maybe,
a little later, another view, broader vision can creep into view.
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): 2025/07/25
Nagel may have been assuming a structural independence more egregious than substrate independence assumed by computer scientists working on AI now. To be a bat, to have vision, is to have a particular living structure with particular functions, those functions derive from the structure, change adaptively to it, but ultimately structure with similarities to others in nature will mostly have similar functions. In a sense, we do know what it is like to be as a bat by extension and science-based inference.
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): 2025/07/25
Ben-Gurion Blues,
Four-and-a-half hours to…
find a way out,
friendly and honest,
and a smirk sets the tone as,
a light at the end of the tunnel.
Is it an interrogative?
It is a statement.
Over and over, repeated,
not for sameness but for intimidation,
new information.
Is this person a threat?
הוּא אַרְבָּעָה
Odd imprints ever-after, like cattle.
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): 2025/07/25
Life: a dance, so fleeting, intense, and exhaustive at some point. It’s a point at which the point of your life is not about you, which is the whole point of life: You don’t always get what you want and often get what you don’t want, and many times find out what you wanted isn’t what you needed.
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): 2025/07/25
If the universe does not have an inherent moral structure, then all moral systems, whether believed to be transcendent or not, come out of a biological systemic interaction with the environment and other biological systems in an environment, living and non-living. Therefore, morality would be distinctly derivative from the structure of the universe rather than fundamental or built into the laws of Nature. We know human beings evolved in the universe and after the purported origin points of the universe. Therefore, if the universe has an Arrow of Time, apparently, we’re left with the non-comforting conclusion on Ethics: Morality is derivative, not primary, or secondary and not part of the basic structure of the world. All moral and ethical considerations should follow from 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): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/07/24
People do not want compasses in matters of the heart.
They do not want advice.
They do not want lectures, especially.
No aphorisms,
No poems, except.
No science,
No reasons.
Rationale beyond Reason.
They want to see,
To touch,
To smell,
To hear,
To taste,
A shaded sunset,
A lined finger along the back,
A new perfume,
An old song,
A fresh ice cream on a hot day.
In short, they want to feel.
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): 2025/07/24
East in West and West in East.
I see the sea from shine to shine,
and the stars scream,
“We are Sand!”
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): 2025/07/22
I note a lot of ‘podcasts’ who, on rare occasion, give note to their genuine luck in life,
not to be homeless.
As has been said, they love the poor, but not the smell of the poor.
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): 2025/07/22
And here we were, unable to help you,
too busy fighting over and for our stories,
our delusions and those of self.
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): 2025/07/20
A day well done is a rite of passage to proper rest.
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): 2025/07/20
I have seen a lot of people change over time.
The arcs of alteration take longer with more time embedded in time.
So, people’s selves are bounded physically and to the known history of the moment for them.
I have seen memorializations warp in real-time, over enough time.
The arcs of memory change with them too.
So, per Loftus, memory is a constructive process for encoding and a reconstructive process for recall, recognition.
Therefore, Memory and the Self are fluidic crystallizations, and so birelational with one another, each with time, and function as a new process object.
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): 2025/07/20
Metals corrode.
Organisms die…
Wise living is the art of slowing 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): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/07/20
Blue matcha tea in Vilnius.
I learned about this,
for the first time today.
Learn something new when you can.
Note the owl of the old lady.
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): 2025/07/20
I saw a Polish guy.
Average looks.
Good suit.
Walking healthily,
on cobblestone.
He was looking at his feet,
in contemplative self-uncertainty.
That’s good.
We need this more,
particularly from self-appointed rulers of society.
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): 2025/07/20
You know, the dead say quite a lot.
Why?
We give them voice.
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): 2025/07/19
“He who wishes to be rich in a day will be hanged in a 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
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/07/19
Life is: A fired hollow point bullet.
Whence we come,
we try, and…
fail,
to piece the fragments together,
while wounded,
bleeding out,
in self-triage without training,
awaiting help for naught.
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): 2025/07/19
I’ve seen many stories, before,
by mindsight,
by feel,
by intuition,
by now,
by way of befores,
over,
over,
over and more,
by conversation and by ear,
listening,
listening,
listening and more,
all saying, “Bye now.”
I did quite a lot,
of listening,
over,
over,
over and more.
Remember Catatonia?
Not just two cats.
Doing what?
Listening,
listening,
listening and more,
seeing my story, by purr,
by mindsight,
by feel,
by intuition,
by now,
by way of befores,
all saying, “Bye now.”
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): 2025/07/19
The purpose for some travels is not in the delivery from one geographic destination to another bounded geography, but the reflective Self in others only seen by force of new geography. Change the setting; alter the state.
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): 2025/07/19
Cloudfall, in night.
Sat down, by the bye,
beyond settled outs,
in I say!
Down deserts,
settled desserts,
Skyfall, in day.
Ran down, sigh the sight,
yonder kinglins,
up I whisper!
Clouds in grass and sky inland,
out yonderdown, say, “Whisper,”
by the sight,
sigh thy bye,
upin, I,
day by night,
settling desert, melted desserts,
I sat up and ran.
Where?
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): 2025/07/15
Global problems,
but for human survival,
is another conference sufficient?
How is this translated outside translations?
Are these sinecure transformers enough?
Even if not, are they at scale?
Is there enough time?
For global problems.
Welcome to the,
Speed Chess Era.
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): 2025/07/13
I took a walk today, talking to a museum administrator.
Enthusiastic,
informative,
present,
alone.
She described in detail all facets of the presentations.
I was there for 2 hours after 30 minutes of informative querying her.
I was the only attendee.
Where is the foundry for such conscientiousness in a moment?
You ever watch actor blooper reels.
They joke,
laugh,
improvise,
then continue the scripted performance.
What are the invisible, golden strings between the improv, the scripted performance, and their authentic selves?
I suppose: Where are the lines drawn in the sand in those moments?
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): 2025/07/12
Going to a different place physically,
changes you,
you meet your reflection, in others.
Yet,
you don’t know the code.
You are realized outside of yourself,
through interactions internalized.
The throughline is the real you:
You’re on the outside looking inward.
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): 2025/07/12
You, sir, do not have a pair of testicles,
If you prefer drinking from glass.
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): 2025/07/05
If you’re serious about pursuing some untrodden paths, you will have to make some sacrifices:
-poverty
-days without food
-heavy exertion
-endurance of pain
-uncertainty
-frequent dime pivots
-sleeping houseless
-sleep deprivation
-accidents, injuries.
Good luck.
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): 2025/07/05
Alaska has always been a typo in my adult life.
Later, I found.
It’s not a typo.
My glasses weren’t on.
Cosmic smudge of the good stuff.
So be 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): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/07/05
We have the electrical equipment.
Many women still prefer a partnered experience.
We have the partners.
Many men still prefer an abstracted fantasy.
What to do?
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): 2025/07/05
I find a strange nostalgia for funerals and war.
It’s not a desire.
Once you go, they beckon,
From nowhere.
A sort of paradox of recurrent finality.
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): 2025/07/05
Belgian detours to Luxembourg are a must,
Particularly for the 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): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/07/05
There is great value in meeting people transiently.
You’re meeting them as their representative, granted, in character.
But generally, they’re more open.
They expose themselves more,
are truthful more.
You learn at lot about people through the truths of a single person while also about common lies presentation aside from the narrative.
Take notes, how are you doing 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): 2025/08/07
Nnenna Onwukwe (They/Them) is the Federal Policy Associate at the Secular Coalition for America, where she advocates for church-state separation, secular inclusion in policy, and protections for religious freedom for all. Onwukwe discusses the Religious Liberty Commission, criticizing its predominantly Christian nationalist composition and lack of secular or interfaith representation. They warn the Commission may use “religious freedom” as a tool for legalizing discrimination, especially against LGBTQ and non-Christian communities. Onwukwe also highlights concerns about IRS policy shifts, political endorsements from the pulpit, and school voucher programs redirecting public funds to private, religious institutions, which threaten public education and constitutional neutrality. SCA has sent a letter to the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury regarding the IRS’s decision not to enforce the Johnson Amendment. You can read the full document on their website: https://secular.org/2025/07/sca-lets-it-be-known-the-johnson-amendment-must-be-enforced
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, what is the Religious Liberty Commission? Moreover, how have they responded to concerns about bias toward one faith over another?
Nnenna Onwukwe: The Religious Liberty Commission was established by President Trump via executive order on May 1, 2025, as part of his broader agenda to promote religious expression in public life. It is housed in the Department of Justice and overseen by the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighbourhood Partnerships and the Domestic Policy Council.
It is chaired by Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, with Dr. Ben Carson as vice chair. The Commission’s term runs through July 4, 2026, coinciding with the 250th anniversary of the U.S. Declaration of Independence.
The Commission’s goals include producing a report on the history and current state of religious liberty in America, identifying threats, and recommending policies, particularly regarding parental rights in religious education, conscience protections, vaccine exemptions, and the use of religious symbols in public spaces.
Jacobsen: So, where does SCA come in?
Onwukwe: We are with the Secular Coalition for America. Our concern is whether the Commission is showing bias toward Christian perspectives. The panel is predominantly composed of conservative evangelical Christians, along with a few Catholics and one Orthodox Jewish representative. There is no real representation of secular individuals, Muslims, Hindus, or other minority faiths.
Before their first public meeting in June, held at the Museum of the Bible, we sent a letter requesting clarity. We wanted to know whether the Commission’s reports would primarily focus on Christians or encompass all faiths, including nonreligious Americans. We also raised concerns about possible discrimination against non-Christian groups.
Jacobsen: Did they respond?
Onwukwe: No, we have not received a reply. Given the composition of the panel and the rhetoric at their first meeting, they may not be interested in secular input. However, we will keep advocating. They must know we are here and that we are watching.
Jacobsen: What are some of your specific concerns with how they are operating?
Onwukwe: So we sent them a couple of questions. We were particularly concerned because, even in the first meeting, there was much rhetoric about America being a “Christian nation.” However, if you examine the actual history of the United States, the founding documents intentionally omitted references to religion.
The founders deliberately moved away from a system that fused religion with government. They envisioned a secular nation with a clear separation of church and state. Hearing language that implies otherwise is troubling.
The composition of the Commission is also a concern, as it lacks secular voices on the panel. During and even before the first meeting, we observed a strong focus on what is often referred to as “anti-Christian bias,” particularly with the establishment of the Anti-Christian Bias Task Force.
The issue is, organizations like ours—and others—have not seen compelling evidence of systemic anti-Christian bias. We worry that the phrase “anti-Christian bias” is being used to justify policies that would allow Christians to discriminate against others, especially in workplaces or service settings.
For example, if a Christian employee claims their religious beliefs are being “discriminated against,” that might be used to excuse discriminatory behaviour toward LGBTQ individuals or people of other faiths. So the implications could be profound.
Jacobsen: Who comprises the Liberty Commission? That is important to know.
Onwukwe: The Commission includes Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, Dr. Ben Carson, and Paula White, who serves as a senior adviser in the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighbourhood Partnerships. Interestingly, Dr. Phil McGraw is also on the panel, though his inclusion has raised some eyebrows.
The panel consists of Christian leaders, many of whom are affiliated with the Christian nationalist movement. It was strange. Even during the Commission meeting, Dr. Phil spoke out against one of the issues being discussed, which was interesting. Dr. Phil may be the one person on the panel who speaks up. I do not know.
The panel is primarily composed of Christians, many of whom are recognizable figures in the Christian nationalist movement. I believe one of them was a former Miss America contestant who publicly stated that marriage should only be between a man and a woman.
That kind of viewpoint reflects the broader makeup of the Commission. Paula White—the head of the White House Faith Office—has been actively pushing the narrative of “anti-Christian bias” and helped establish the Anti-Christian Bias Task Force.
She was a frequent spiritual adviser during Trump’s presidency and was present when both the Religious Liberty Commission and the Anti-Christian Bias Task Force were launched, often leading prayers at those events.
Interestingly, she has also claimed that women should not hold positions of power, despite holding one herself. That contradiction is, of course, hard to ignore. Overall, it is a panel dominated by prominent Christian nationalist voices who support the idea that America is inherently a Christian nation.
Even the Jewish panellists did not speak up when those kinds of statements were made, which we found concerning, mainly because those statements are not factual.
Jacobsen: What about their makeup?
Onwukwe: The majority of the makeup of the commission are Protestant and conservative Catholics. There are a few rabbis and other Jewish members and at least one person who is Muslim. During their first meeting there was only one Jewish person sitting on the panel, the rest of the panelists were Christian or Catholic.
Jacobsen: Are there any secular voices on the Commission or involved in any way?
Onwukwe: None that we saw. None that are openly secular, at least. Most of the individuals involved are prominent figures in Christian media or associated with the Christian nationalist movement, unfortunately. That is a significant concern for us.
Onwukwe: We even provided them with names—people who could represent secular Americans and offer a valuable perspective—but nothing has come of it so far.
Jacobsen: Another important point—while not necessarily from a secular perspective alone, it is still concerning: How diverse is the Commission in terms of religious representation? Because it is not just secular voices being excluded; it is also about whether they include a broad interfaith representation.
Do they reflect the growing diversity in American religious identity? They ignore the expanding secular population, but are they at least capturing denominational or interfaith diversity?
Onwukwe: The majority are Christians, as I mentioned earlier. There are a few Jewish voices, and I believe there may be one or two Muslim individuals involved. However, it is unclear whether they are formally part of the panel or just a participant in the broader conversation.
However, aside from that, the overwhelming majority of the Commission members are Christian. So, in terms of true interfaith diversity, it is minimal. As you said, there is a growing secular movement—an increasing number of Americans now identify as nonreligious.
We have been advocating for secular representation in Congress and other federal bodies for years. It is deeply concerning that this Commission was created without any meaningful representation of nonreligious Americans.
Jacobsen: So, in a sense, this version of “religious liberty” seems like a highly selective interpretation of freedom of religion and conscience?
Onwukwe: We often see this with groups like this one and others that promote Christian nationalism.
They often claim they are fighting for “religious freedom” or “religious liberty,” and that they are being discriminated against, when in reality, what they are pushing for is the freedom to use their religion to discriminate against others or insert their religious beliefs into public institutions, like schools.
The Commission reflects this mindset. They interpret the First Amendment not as a protection from religious imposition, but as a license to impose their spiritual values on public life under the guise of protecting religious freedom.
So yes, that is our concern. They have taken a highly selective interpretation of religious liberty—one that favours a particular brand of Christianity—and are using it to advance a very narrow cultural and political agenda.
Jacobsen: They are using that interpretation to justify discrimination.
Onwukwe: And that is one of our biggest concerns: that the Commission will use this distorted view of religious freedom to target minority groups, framing it as though Christians are being discriminated against, when in fact, they are the ones seeking legal cover to discriminate.
Jacobsen: And this is not new. I remember hearing similar arguments as far back as seven years ago. It would usually come in the form of a brief controversy, such as a 15-minute segment on Fox News, when something happens at a school or church.
When I was interviewing two people from The Satanic Temple several years ago, they mentioned a persistent persecution complex. They have framed it in a way that if they do not get 100% of what they want, they see it as oppression. They push this narrative. So when they do not get everything exactly as they want it, they claim they are being persecuted.
How they frame this “victimization” is revealing. Some isolated concerns might be valid, but overall, they are using the idea of victimhood as a political tool.
Onwukwe: Yes. Moreover, as we have discussed, the secular community is growing. Younger generations, especially, have different views on social and moral issues—things the older, more religious generations often find threatening or uncomfortable. That discomfort is sometimes interpreted as discrimination by those older groups.
The rise of LGBTQ rights—such as marriage equality, trans rights, and protections for people of other religions or no religion—is often perceived by some conservative Christian groups as an attack on their faith.
They see it as a threat to the version of America they grew up with, even though the United States has always been a secular nation. It is unfamiliar to them, and they interpret these changes as direct attacks on their beliefs.
This perception extends to issues such as vaccine mandates and mask requirements. In 2020, we witnessed widespread outrage over church closures, despite all public gathering places being closed due to health concerns.
Still, they felt singled out because of their religion, even though the policies were broad and applied to everyone equally. What we are discussing is ensuring that all Americans—regardless of their religion or identity—have equal rights and freedoms.
However, for some, equality feels like persecution because it challenges the privileged position they have long held. You can also see it in schools. Many Christian organizations have been advocating for initiatives such as mandatory prayer in public schools.
Moreover, with the recent Supreme Court decision—Mahmood v. Taylor—there has been a push to allow parents to opt their children out of public education that conflicts with their religious views.
So when they claim they are being “discriminated against,” it often really means they want their religious beliefs to take precedence over others’ rights. That is something we see a lot in the Christian nationalist movement and among many far-right Christian groups.
Jacobsen: So, the IRS has weighed in on political endorsements from the pulpit. That is the way it is being framed, although the specifics, outside of press releases, are essential to examine. There are questions about what exactly constitutes a political endorsement—financial or otherwise—and how that interacts with the Johnson Amendment, or whether this is an attempt to override or circumvent it. I am not yet aware of the implications.
Onwukwe: So basically, over the years—as you have probably seen—a lot of Americans have filed complaints with the IRS, objecting to religious institutions and leaders openly endorsing political candidates from the pulpit. That is a clear violation of the Johnson Amendment, which prohibits tax-exempt religious organizations from endorsing or opposing candidates for public office.
Despite this, the IRS has taken minimal action. We, along with other secular organizations, have issued alerts and encouraged the public to submit formal objections to the IRS. However, the agency has not responded decisively or pursued many of these cases.
With the recent developments, the IRS is now taking the stance that religious institutions can endorse political candidates from the pulpit, essentially making it clear there will be no consequences. That is deeply concerning.
It opens the door for politicians to funnel untaxed money through churches in exchange for endorsements. You will start seeing political ads or candidate promotions coming directly from megachurches on TV or in services. Since these ads occur within religious institutions, the funds and activities associated with them will not be taxed.
This poses a serious threat to the separation of church and state. We expect this will have significant adverse effects on future elections, undermining fair democratic processes and increasing the influence of religious institutions in partisan politics.
Jacobsen: Are there any limits on the amount?
Onwukwe: On how much someone can donate to a church for political purposes? No, there are no clear limits. So, someone could donate any amount they want to a church to promote a candidate. Moreover, that messaging will end up on people’s TVs, in their social feeds, or even from the pulpit itself.
There is also ambiguity around whether religious institutions can now endorse candidates on social media or through other channels. That is something we are still watching closely. Since this just happened, we will have to see how far it goes. A lot is still unclear at this point.
Jacobsen: When was the last time the United States was in a situation like this? Was there anything before the Johnson Amendment that served a similar purpose? Or has it always really just been the Johnson Amendment?
Onwukwe: That is a good question. I do not know. I am aware that the Johnson Amendment was introduced to prevent churches and other tax-exempt institutions from endorsing political candidates.
However, it was created in response to a specific incident, or was it a more preventative measure, intended to ensure that political activity remained separate from tax-exempt religious institutions?
Jacobsen: Does this change anything regarding verbal endorsements, written endorsements, or other forms of promotion from churches or politicians?
Onwukwe: That is another good question. We are still not sure. In this particular case, the IRS was responding to a specific incident and stated that the priest involved could promote candidates from the pulpit. So, that is the precedent being set right now.
However, whether that opens the door to broader endorsements—such as written letters, church-produced media, or full-on political ads on TV from a megachurch—is still unknown. It is very concerning. Like I said, we will have to wait and see how churches use this new leeway—and how prominent political donors might take advantage of it.
If someone wants to make a tax-free donation to promote a candidate, they could funnel it through a church and let the church handle the endorsement.
Jacobsen: The reality is, voters get their information about politicians from many different sources. For some, it might come directly from the presidential campaign. Still, for others—especially down-ballot races—it could come from more indirect means.
Depending on the voter, they may not have regular access to the internet or social media. They may not be tech-savvy or connected digitally at all. A significant portion of their political information comes through TV, primarily through ads like these.
That is where attack ads are particularly effective. Moreover, now, imagine that same person regularly attending church. If their priest or pastor is saying, “This is what you should be doing,” “This is who you should be voting for,” and “This is how to act as a faithful person,” that has a profound influence.
If someone has a strong connection to their religious leader, that endorsement can significantly shape their vote. This influence had already been happening under the radar, but now it has essentially been given the green light to proceed at full speed ahead. Is there already a legal counter-challenge to this decision?
Onwukwe: So far, I have not seen any formal legal challenges. I am sure efforts are being made behind the scenes, or announcements may be forthcoming soon. It will be interesting to see how this unfolds legally, especially when it comes to directly challenging this interpretation of the Johnson Amendment.
If it can be challenged, we will see action to at least slow it down or stop it entirely. However, for now, we are in a “wait and see” phase.
Jacobsen: How is this being received within your network, such as the Secular Coalition and its partner organizations?
Onwukwe: Across the board, our network has reacted strongly. All of our member organizations are in substantial alignment on this issue. Even in the past, when megachurches came out publicly in support of candidates, the Secular Coalition for America and many of our partners would issue public statements, send letters to the IRS, and encourage members and supporters to do the same.
Seeing this new stance—effectively dismantling the Johnson Amendment—has sparked considerable concern. Many people are speaking out and trying to figure out what can be done next. What is especially striking is that this new interpretation appears to be limited to churches.
Other 501(c)(3) organizations—particularly secular nonprofits—are still prohibited from endorsing candidates. While religious organizations can now promote political figures from the pulpit, secular nonprofits, including ours and many of our partner groups, are still bound by these restrictions. It is an apparent double standard.
Jacobsen: To be explicit and specific about leaders, what about pastoral political advertising?
Onwukwe: It does not appear this ruling will explicitly allow pastors to engage in political advertising. They may, however, be able to circumvent this by sending social media, emails, and other forms of communications to their congregations to further endorse political candidates.
Jacobsen, what about temples or mosques—are other religions also allowed to do this?
Onwukwe: Yes, they are. It applies broadly to religious institutions, such as churches, mosques, and temples. However, again, secular 501(c)(3) organizations are excluded from this privilege.
Jacobsen: There we go. Are there any final points we should add?
Onwukwe: I guess one other thing we have been working on—you might have heard about it—is the Educational Choice for Children Act. That has been in the works for a while now. We discussed it during our lobbying event in March.
A lot has been happening behind the scenes. It ended up being included in what the Trump administration has been calling their “Big, Beautiful Bill”—the actual language they have used to brand it. It is a terrible name, honestly.
However, the bottom line is that the bill passed in an amended form. The Secular Coalition for America is particularly concerned about the implications it could have on the separation of church and state, especially in the education sector.
What this law does is allow for federal school vouchers. The vast majority of those vouchers ultimately end up in private religious schools. That means public funds, which could be used for public schools and essential services, are being diverted to help families pay for religious education. That is a significant problem.
We are particularly concerned about how this affects public schools and marginalized students. These private religious schools are allowed to discriminate in admissions, whether that is against families of a different religion, students with disabilities, or families who do not meet their financial expectations.
For example, if a parent does not belong to the school’s preferred faith, the child can be rejected. If a student has a disability that the school does not want to accommodate, the school can also refuse to accept that student.
Moreover, the vouchers themselves do not cover the full cost of tuition at these schools. So they will not help low-income students get access—they will primarily benefit families who are already close to being able to afford it. It is a subsidy for the middle and upper-middle class, not real access for the underserved.
Additionally, in rural areas—where there are few or no private schools—students often lack the option to take advantage of the voucher program. In those areas, states that opt into the program will see funding stripped away from their public schools, without offering any viable alternative.
So there is much concern. We will have to wait and see how this plays out. The way the bill was passed includes an option for states to opt out, which is one positive aspect. States that do not wish to participate in the program are not required to do so.
However, we are already seeing signs that some states—which have previously expressed support for school vouchers—are moving forward with implementation, despite local opposition.
Even in states where voters have rejected similar measures in the past, leaders now have the green light to proceed without another public vote. In states where political leadership is divided—say, a governor who supports vouchers and a legislature that does not, or vice versa—this can also lead to significant internal conflict.
So we will continue to spread the word. You will probably see something from us in the next few days that lays out what the Educational Choice for Children Act (ECCA) is, what it does now that it has passed, and what kind of impact we might see on public education.
We will continue to raise awareness and ensure that people are informed, so they can speak out against it if they choose.
Jacobsen: Good work—let us stay in touch.
Onwukwe: Thanks so much, Scott.
Jacobsen: Thanks so much.
Onwukwe: Have a good one. 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): 2025/08/06
Calgary, Alberta – August 10, 2025 – Nimrokh Media will host the 8th annual celebration of its founding by Fatima Roshanian. Fatima Roshanian, Founder of Nimrokh Media, said, “This anniversary is not only a celebration of Nimrokh’s journey but a testament to the resilience of Afghan journalists, and the importance of a free press in the face of adversity.”
It is a way to honour the courageous work of Afghan journalists while reflecting on the fall of Afghanistan to the theocratic, repressive forces of the Taliban. All Canadian media are encouraged to come to the event. The event happens Sunday, August 10, 2025, from 11:00 am to 3:00 pm (Calgary Time). It will be at Banu Kabob Restaurant, 575 28 Street SE, Calgary.
Nimrokh Media’s commitment to independent journalism is marked by this anniversary, a platform for dialogue and community connection. There will be traditional Afghan music and cuisine. There will be cultural conversations. There will be presentations about press freedom and the future of Afghan journalism.
Guest Speakers will be Parwiz Kawa, Zahra Nader, and Carolyn Campbell. There will be a special segment by Fatima Roshanian on personal stories of resistance and resilience.
The ticket costs are $35 per person to cover the costs of the event. Payments are accepted via e-transfer to mail@nimrokhmedia.com (include first name and last name, and number of tickets). Any journalists attending as the press are welcome as guests—no ticket required.
Please make sure to RSVP prior to the event. Any additional donations to support Nimrokh Media’s journalism are welcome, as well.
About Nimrokh Media
Nimrokh Media is an independent platform dedicated to elevating the voices of Afghan women and marginalized communities, advocating for press freedom, and telling the stories that matter most. Since its founding, Nimrokh has become a vital source of truth and a symbol of resilience for Afghan journalists in exile.
Contact:
Nimrokh Media
Email: mail@nimrokhmedia.com
Website: www.nimrokhmedia.com
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): 2025/08/05
Kiona Bodasing, Head of Talent Acquisition at CCI South Africa, talks about the company’s commitment to women’s empowerment and inclusive leadership. Bodasing highlights success stories like Lizelle Strydom and Anusha Ramraj, who rose from entry-level roles to executive positions. CCI Global supports female talent through mentorship, hybrid learning, leadership boot camps, and performance tracking. With over 50% female leadership, CCI fosters equity by redesigning systems and ensuring accessible growth opportunities across Africa’s BPO sector.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are joined by Kiona Bodasing, Head of Talent Acquisition at CCI South Africa, a division of CCI Global, a leading business process outsourcing (BPO) company operating across Africa. Based in the Durban Metropolitan Area, Kiona plays a pivotal role in recruiting and developing talent for the organization.
Bodasing: Yes, thank you for having me.
Jacobsen: Kiona is an alumna of IIE Varsity College and the University of South Africa (UNISA), where she studied BCom in Human Resources. In her role, Kiona has been instrumental in expanding CCI’s workforce, particularly in South Africa and Kenya, aligning with the company’s commitment to creating meaningful career opportunities and promoting diversity. Her efforts contribute to CCI Global’s mission of transforming communities through employment and skill development. Thank you for joining me today. Let us begin. What CCI Global success story illustrates women’s empowerment in leadership?
Bodasing: Two standout examples are Lizelle Strydom and Anusha Ramraj. Lizelle began as a call center agent and has risen to become the Managing Director of CareerBox, CCI Global’s talent development arm. Anusha started in a junior finance role and is now the Chief Financial Officer of CCI South Africa. Their journeys demonstrate how we prioritize internal mobility and support high-potential women with structured career planning and skills training. We have seen multiple examples across Kenya, Ethiopia, and South Africa where women rise from entry-level roles into management positions within just a few years.
Jacobsen: How does CCI Global support high-potential talent?
Bodasing: We invest early and consistently, from onboarding to performance coaching. Our learning programs are tailored to help women build confidence, skills, and visibility. We also track performance through a gender lens to know who is ready for the next step and proactively match them to opportunities.
Jacobsen: What strategies have worked to achieve over 50% female leadership at CCI Global?
Bodasing combines intentional hiring, transparent promotion pipelines, and inclusive leadership training. We do not just look at who is ready—we look at who is often overlooked. We design for equity, not just equality; that mindset drives real representation.
Jacobsen: How has the company’s gender parity impacted operational performance?
Bodasing: Our gender-balanced teams are more collaborative and empathetic and often outperform in customer service and customer experience metrics. This also improves retention. People stay where they feel seen and supported.
Jacobsen: How does CCI Global ensure leadership development opportunities are accessible?
Bodasing: We ensure that leadership development opportunities are accessible by implementing mentorship programs, offering continuous learning and development courses, and creating clear pathways for career advancement. This approach helps us identify and nurture talent from within, ensuring that all employees have the opportunity to grow into leadership roles.
Jacobsen: So, access means flexibility?
Bodasing: Yes. We offer hybrid learning, local mentorships, and leadership boot camps that do not require sacrificing family or personal time. We also partner with CareerBox to reach young women from underserved communities, expanding the talent pool from the ground up.
Jacobsen: What are mentorship, sponsorship, or peer support programs in place?
Bodasing: We have formal mentorship programs, but some of the most powerful support comes from our women-led circles—informal, peer-driven spaces for coaching, storytelling, and career navigation.
Jacobsen: How is the long-term impact of gender parity initiatives measured?
Bodasing: We track promotion rates, performance scores, and retention through a gender lens. However, we also gather qualitative feedback—how empowered women feel, what barriers they face, and what changes they want to see. It is not just about numbers. It is about transforming the lived experience of women at work.
Jacobsen: What promotes gender equality and women’s leadership?
Bodasing: intentional. It does not happen by chance. We bake equity into every decision, from job design and pay transparency to who is in the room when leadership decisions are made. We do not just ask, “Why aren’t women leading?” We ask, “What systems are in the way—and how do we redesign them?”
Jacobsen: Thank you very much for your time today. I appreciate it.
Bodasing: Thank you. It has been a pleasure.
–
”We Don’t Wait for Women to Lead—We Build the Systems That Let Them.”
At CCI, we don’t wait for women to lead—we build the systems that make it inevitable. Here, women don’t just get a seat at the table; they’re redesigning the table itself.
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): 2025/08/04
Arndís Anna Kristínardóttir Gunnarsdóttir is President of Siðmennt, the Icelandic Ethical Humanist Association. Raised in a nonreligious Lutheran household, she embraced Christianity as a child—memorizing Bible verses and undergoing barefoot confirmation at 14—before questioning faith amid her father’s Pentecostal turn. A lawyer, she advised Siðmennt and delivered its secular parliamentary alternative. Elected president on March 1 after a two-candidate race, she served as an MP (2021–2024), championing church-state separation, transparency, constitutional review, and humanist principles. Gunnarsdóttir’s path to the presidency of Siðmennt was a gradual one.
Born to nonpracticing Lutheran parents, she embraced Christian faith as a child—memorizing Bible verses and choosing barefoot confirmation at 14—and later became unsettled by her father’s association with the Pentecostal Church, which emphasized fear of the devil. This prompted years of questioning until she concluded morality need not derive from religion. As a lawyer, she advised Siðmennt from 2013 and presented its secular alternative before Parliament. Running as a two-candidate contest, she was elected president on March 1 and has overseen membership growth even as Iceland’s national church declines. In Parliament (2021–2024) representing the Pirate Party, Gunnarsdóttir championed the separation of church and state, transparency, privacy rights, and the creation of an independent constitutional advisory council. She criticized the government’s choice of a church-affiliated crematorium over a secular proposal, highlighting institutional bias, and seeks interfaith cooperation to uphold shared humanist values.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What is your current title?
Arndís Anna Kristínardóttir Gunnarsdóttir: Gunnarsdóttir: I am the President of Siðmennt, the Icelandic Ethical Humanist Association.
Jacobsen: How did you become involved in the humanist and ethical movement in Iceland? And how long have you been its President?
Gunnarsdóttir: To be honest, I cannot pinpoint a specific moment when I became involved in humanism. It happened gradually over time. I was raised in a non-religious household, which is quite typical in Iceland. Like many Icelanders, we were registered in the National Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church, but we did not actively practice religion. As a child, though, I was pretty religious. I attended Christian summer camps, considered myself devout, and had a traditional Lutheran confirmation at the age of 14. I chose to go barefoot for the ceremony, which, for me, held symbolic meaning — a personal expression of sincerity or humility. However, I am not entirely sure why I felt that way at the time.
Jacobsen: What did that mean to you?
Gunnarsdóttir: It meant going through the confirmation without shoes or socks. It was a symbolic gesture. At the time, I viewed it as a form of personal devotion or a serious commitment to the ritual. I was the kind of child who wanted to do things properly. I even memorized and quoted Bible verses. Not excessively, but I took it seriously. I was a straight-A student, very well-behaved. I had a strong desire to be perfect, and my religious behaviour was part of that mindset. Looking back, I believe I was genuinely religious as a child. But my shift toward humanism began when my father became involved with the Pentecostal Church in Iceland. That was a confusing period for me. Although I still considered myself Christian, the Pentecostal focus was unsettling. They spoke more about the devil than about God. It seemed like they saw the devil everywhere. Much of what I experienced in that environment felt wrong or disturbing to me — it conflicted with what I believed Christianity should be. It led to a period of confusion and reflection. For a time, I distanced myself from religion entirely because I needed to rethink everything.
And I started saying things like, “I don’t believe in God if God is so judgmental,” etc. I began to doubt — very seriously. At first, I still believed in God but rejected the religious doctrines and interpretations I was encountering. Slowly, gradually, over time, that changed. This is why I cannot pinpoint the exact moment I became a humanist or decided to join Siðmennt. It was a process that spanned many years.
As a child, I always wanted to help people. My dream job when I was little was to become a Christian missionary in Africa. The funny thing is that, as an adult, I ended up working for the Red Cross , supporting refugees and asylum seekers.
My dream is still to go to areas experiencing humanitarian crises to try and help. I now see it from a different perspective. I would say I am mostly healed from what you might call the white saviour syndrome. But I have not abandoned that part of myself from childhood — the part that wants to help, that wants to bring and promote humanity.
At some point, I realized that I did not need religion to do that. I do not need religion to act ethically. That realization is what brought me to humanism.
Humanist values are grounded in the idea that our principles and ethics do not come from divine sources — they come from our shared humanity. That understanding made me more active in Siðmennt.
I never held a formal position in the organization before becoming President. However, I have given legal advice to Siðmennt over the years and have been involved in various ways. In 2013, for example, I gave a speech at the beginning of Parliament’s annual session.
In Iceland, a traditional church service is held before the first session of the parliament. But for several decades now, Siðmennt has offered a secular alternative . At this gathering, a speaker provides hopefully wise and meaningful words, followed by a lunch. I was honoured to give that speech in 2013.
So, I have been indirectly involved with Siðmennt for a long time.
I also served as a Member of Parliament in Iceland from 2021 to 2024. During that time, I actively supported and promoted the goals of Siðmennt and the broader humanist movement, including advocating for the separation of church and state.
For example, there is currently a need for a new crematorium in Iceland. Due to our small population, there is only one existing crematorium. A private association came forward with funding and plans to create a secular crematorium.
Unfortunately, I received news today that the new Minister of Justice has signed an agreement with Reykjavík Cemeteries, which are affiliated with the national church.
Technically, Siðmennt has a representative on the board overseeing this, and it is supposed to be interreligious. But in reality, about 80 percent of the representatives are affiliated with the state church. So it is still far from being truly neutral or inclusive.
Jacobsen: So, in Iceland, the state church means the Lutheran Church?
Gunnarsdóttir: Yes, it is the Lutheran Protestant Church of Iceland. They used to have around 80–90 percent of the population, but now they are just above 50 percent. Despite the global trend of conservative resurgence — including here in Iceland — the national church continues to lose members.
Meanwhile, our membership continues to grow. The rate of change has slowed, but the trend remains the same: fewer members for the state church, more for us.
I never had any personal ambition or goal to become President of Humanists Iceland. The idea was proposed to me by friends who had been more active within the humanist community. That was because Inga had decided not to run again.
So there was a need for a new candidate, and I was encouraged to step forward. I first heard the suggestion around a year ago. By November, they began pushing me to consider it more seriously, and I decided to run in February.
It all happened quite fast. The election was held on March 1, and I was elected President. There were three candidates initially. One of them withdrew his candidacy at the end of his speech , which was a bit unusual. He completed his candidate speech and then announced he was withdrawing.
So, in the end, it was just the two of us. Interestingly, the withdrawn candidate still received a few votes — maybe just one.
Jacobsen: Are candidates allowed to vote?
Gunnarsdóttir: Yes, they are. But I do not think he voted for himself since he had already withdrawn. Then again, who knows? In any case, I won. And here I am.
Jacobsen: When you attend major events like this one, is this your first?
Gunnarsdóttir: Yes. A Nordic conference took place earlier this year.
Jacobsen: Were you involved around the time of the 2019 Reykjavík conference?
Gunnarsdóttir: No. I was in France at the time, working on my PhD.
Jacobsen: How did that go?
Gunnarsdóttir: I did not finish it.
Jacobsen: COVID?
Gunnarsdóttir: Yes, COVID. I was supposed to travel to the U.S. for the final stage of my research. I mentioned this earlier — I was doing a comparative study on the development of freedom of religion as a legal concept in Europe and the United States.
The final part of my research involved work in the U.S., but I had never been there before. I had planned a research stay, but travel was not allowed due to the pandemic.
So I returned to Iceland and later ran for Parliament. After being elected, I abandoned the PhD.
Jacobsen: Three points on Parliament. First — Is the Althing the oldest Parliament in Europe?
Gunnarsdóttir: Yes.
Jacobsen: Second — Did it have to be restarted after a period of inactivity?
Gunnarsdóttir: Yes. I do not remember the exact dates, but you can look them up.
Jacobsen: Third point — the party you represented was the Pirate Party?
Gunnarsdóttir: Yes.
Jacobsen: The Pirate Party exists in different countries under the same name.
Gunnarsdóttir: Yes.
Jacobsen: So it may mean the same thing — or it may not.
Gunnarsdóttir: Yes.
Jacobsen: What does the Pirate Party stand for in Iceland?
Gunnarsdóttir: In Iceland? That is a good question. I love it. Due to the confusion surrounding the name. Of course, the name originally comes from the idea of “piracy.” The Pirate Party movement was founded by computer enthusiasts who were concerned that politics were not keeping up with technological developments and the evolution of information technology.
The movement had a lot to do with access to information, freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and the right to privacy — the balance between those principles.
But it evolved. In Iceland, the party began with those ideals. People often mistakenly think it is about getting free movies and music. But what attracted me to the movement was not the tech side — I do not have a background in IT. I am a lawyer.
What drew me in was that when you start talking about freedom of expression, access to information, transparency, the fight against corruption, and the right to privacy, you are talking about fundamental rights.
In Iceland, those concerns directly intersect with human rights and constitutional issues — topics that unfortunately do not receive enough political attention.
These are areas where politics have lagged, partly because the public is not aware of how these issues affect them.
For example, one bill that the Pirate Party has presented year after year — though we have always been in the opposition, so it has never passed — is about constitutional review of parliamentary legislation.
Currently, there is no formal constitutional review process in place. That fact is shocking to most people. One reason there is so little concern is that people assume such a review already exists.
They cannot imagine that Parliament would pass laws without checking them against the Constitution. But that is the situation. That is the reality.
So we proposed the creation of a constitutional council that would be independent from Parliament — nonpartisan and separate from politics — that would provide advisory opinions. It would always remain advisory. For example, at the request of a certain number of members of Parliament, the council could review a bill and offer an opinion on its constitutionality.
There are many possible ways to structure the process. Still, the idea is to have a mechanism for constitutional review — something we currently lack. Unfortunately, there has been little interest in this proposal.
People often ask, “How is this related to the Pirate Party?” It is — because it concerns fundamental rights and freedoms, which are at the core of the Pirate Party’s mission. That is the meaning of the movement. And I think that is how most people in Iceland now understand the Pirate Party — because they have seen what we fight for.
We fight for transparency. We are known for that. We have often gained public attention for our relentless efforts to expose corruption in Iceland.
For example, we published a report — this is quite telling. You can see the difference between how conservatives and we, in the Pirate Party, understand transparency and privacy.
I can compare four cases in Iceland where sensitive information was made public — two involving the Pirates and two involving conservatives. And there is an apparent difference between them.
Jacobsen: Do you see the Pirate Party as a kind of Robin Hood party — stealing from the rich and giving to the poor?
Gunnarsdóttir: Well, for instance, in one case that people call a “leak,” we just published the report — it was not a leak at all. We posted it on our website. It was a report about how specific state-owned properties were handled after the 2008 economic collapse. The report had never been made public , so we made it public.
That is what we do. Another report we were accused of leaking did not come from us. But we did not mind people thinking it did, because it was a critical report.
It was leaked two days before its scheduled release. The report concerned the sale of a state-owned bank, and numerous questions arose regarding that transaction.
The report came from the National Audit Office — I was trying to remember the name earlier.
Jacobsen: Finances, accounting, financial statements… audit?
Gunnarsdóttir: Yes, the National Audit Office. The report was leaked to the media two days before its official release, and we were blamed for it. We never claimed responsibility, but we also said we did not see anything wrong with it.
The reason the authorities delayed its publication was to control the narrative before the public had access to it. It was actually in the public interest for it to be seen earlier.
The leaks we are blamed for — rightly or wrongly — are always about information relevant to the public, about matters of state.
By contrast, leaks associated with the Independence Party have involved private information — personal data about individuals — intended to discredit or stigmatize them.
In one case, the target was an asylum seeker. So you can see the contrast: they try to say it is the same — ”Oh, you’releaking information too” — but we are leaking public-interest information about state operations. They are leaking private data about vulnerable people.
But they do not seem to understand the difference.
This is what we are known for, and many people understand what the Pirates stand for.
That said, one of the reasons we failed to gain any parliamentary seats in the last election is the growing polarization in society.
The Left-Greens lost voters to the Socialist Party, and the Social Democrats have become stronger. We are moving toward two large political blocs, instead of the many smaller parties that characterized earlier parliaments.
Even though ten parties still ran in the last election, this is the current trend.
So that is the Pirate Party in Iceland — more or less.
Jacobsen: How do you see Iceland’s style of humanism as a reflection of the more global movement? Everyone shares roughly the same values, but they tend to rank or prioritize them differently. Another way to look at it is that when youshine a light through the prism of humanism, the character and colouring of it shift depending on the culture , and even the individual. So, how would you describe the Icelandic version of humanism?
Gunnarsdóttir: That’s a fascinating question, mainly because we are seeing some worrying developments lately. Still, I believe humanism is a significant part of our national identity.
Generally, Icelanders do not identify as religious. Even when people say, “We are a Christian nation,” what they usually mean by that is not literal Christianity — they mean values we associate with humanism: equality, justice, and human rights for all.
Those are the values for which we are known. We have built a reputation for gender equality and queer rights — those are the areas where we’ve been seen as progressive.
But that image is changing somewhat.
So, when people say things like, “Immigrants are threatening our values,” I respond, “No , they are not. You are, by saying that.”
The threat comes not from immigrants but from those of us who fail to uphold, share, and practise our values. Instead of modelling and teaching them, we violate them ourselves.
For example, by passing legislation that limits the rights of refugees — such as removing their ability to appeal decisions — we are actively taking away procedural protections from vulnerable people.
This is very new in Iceland. And it is entirely at odds with our core identity as a society committed to equality.
Jacobsen: Does the attitude toward immigration differ by group? About 8% of your population is Polish, 1% is Lithuanian, and then there’s a mix of others who make up 1% or less each.
Gunnarsdóttir: Is there a difference in how they’re treated? Or is the sentiment more uniform? It hasn’t changed drastically in recent years.
By far, the largest foreign population in Iceland is Polish, and they are relatively well accepted.
The issue has more to do with political rhetoric and how those in power frame the conversation.
For example, the number of refugees in Iceland is still extremely small , statistically negligible. It’s something like 0-point-something percent. There is no significant influx.
Still, if 400 refugees arrive, people act as if Iceland is about to sink into the ocean — yet when 10,000 people come from the European Economic Area (EEA), no one says a word.
The numbers have not increased dramatically in general. The only real spike came in connection with the war in Ukraine.
That was a few years ago now — time passes quickly.
We also had a noticeable group come from Venezuela, which was a trend across Europe.
But even then, the numbers were small — just a few hundred people. And we knew it was a temporary situation.
Despite this, one of the most significant turning points in public discourse came when our Foreign Minister posted something on Facebook…
That moment marked a U-turn in Icelandic political discourse. At the time, Palestinian refugees were protesting outside Parliament.
There’s a small park in front of the Alþingi — it is where protests regularly take place. If you want to demonstrate, that is the designated area.
They had set up a single tent, with authorization from the city. Inside the tent, they stated they would remain there until they were granted family reunification with loved ones still in danger in Gaza.
These were people who had already received approval for family reunification, but had no safe or viable means for their relatives to leave Gaza.
Other countries, including some Nordic states, were utilizing their diplomatic channels to facilitate evacuations. Iceland, however, refused to do so.
At the time, the Foreign Minister — who was also the chair of the conservative Independence Party — posted on Facebook that the tent was “obnoxious” and “horrible” to see in front of such a “respectable institution.”
Jacobsen: To clarify — factually — it was not a tent encampment, but a single tent?
Gunnarsdóttir: Yes, just one tent. You could probably fit 20 people inside. But no one was sleeping there. People were sitting, gathering, and talking.
You could pass by and have coffee with them. It was relatively peaceful — almost like a small festival.
Jacobsen: Were there any noise complaints?
Gunnarsdóttir: Not.
Jacobsen: Any complaints of violence or harassment?
Gunnarsdóttir: Not initially. But after the Foreign Minister’s Facebook post — after he called it obnoxious — harassment began. People started targeting those in the tent.
Jacobsen: Just to be clear, was the harassment coming from Icelanders or other recently arrived individuals?
Gunnarsdóttir: It came from Icelanders. The Foreign Minister’s rhetoric stirred something. And the most serious part was at the end of his post — he tried to claim he was addressing two unrelated issues in one article — but he wrote that Iceland also needs to “start getting serious about organized crime.”
Jacobsen: When I was doing fieldwork in Iceland, I was there for about three weeks. It took about a week before I saw even one homeless person. I did not see any others during that time. That individual may have been a beggar rather than homeless. From what I observed, Iceland is quite comfortable.
Gunnarsdóttir: Very comfortable.
Jacobsen: In general. So, how did the public receive the minister’s remarks?
Gunnarsdóttir: There was much backlash. There was much anger. However, I would also say it permitted people who already held those views to speak openly.
It completely shifted the discourse. It increased polarization in a single day. Suddenly, it became socially acceptable to say that asylum seekers are a problem — either they are taking our jobs or draining public benefits. And it is like, okay, which is it? Are they working or not working?
People started claiming that their religion is dangerous. Everything changed almost overnight. And now it is common to hear someone say, “I have no problem with foreigners — it is just asylum seekers and refugees who are here to exploit our social system.”
People feel entitled to talk this way because someone in power has given them a signal. “He must know what he’s talking about,” they assume. But he didn’t even say any of that directly. He just said, “This tent is ugly,” and added something about organized crime.
Jacobsen: Role models and examples matter. Representation matters.
Gunnarsdóttir: Let me ask you — how many women in hijab did you see during your stay?
Jacobsen: In Iceland?
Gunnarsdóttir: Yes. How long did it take? Did you see one on your first day?
Jacobsen: I think I saw one.
Gunnarsdóttir: Exactly.
Jacobsen: It doesn’t stand out.
Gunnarsdóttir: We don’t have a visible increase in diversity on the streets, unlike many other countries. The number of visibly different people is still minimal. We only have the rhetoric — there is no demographic basis for the moral panic.
This rhetoric is the only reason public opinion has changed.
Jacobsen: For the record, how does Lutheranism in Iceland distinguish itself from other Christian denominations? Anddoes religion get invoked in political discourse during moments like these?
It doesn’t have to be about immigration necessarily — just anything that could be seen as contradicting humanist values: equality, fair treatment, dignity, compassion.
Let’s set aside sophisticated legal frameworks, such as democracy, the rule of law, and human rights, for a moment.
Gunnarsdóttir: Well, right now we have two openly populist parties in Parliament — one of them is even part of the governing coalition. They talk about Islam as a threat to our values, and so on. That narrative is very present.
But the number of Muslims in Iceland is minimal — their population is growing, but only by one or two people per year. I don’t have the exact figures, but it’s not very important.
We do not even have one Muslim representative in Parliament. So, how exactly is Islam threatening our values or institutions? It is not. The threat is coming from within — from the political rhetoric and actions of people already in power.
Jacobsen: There’s a North American saying — you might have heard it: “The hate is coming from inside the house.”
And I think Iceland is a perfect example , because we had nothing external driving this. In Iceland, you’re free to speak out, so why the shift in rhetoric? In many countries, people are unable to discuss such issues.
So, we’ve seen pluralistic ignorance: everyone assumes things are fine, while underneath, they’re not.
Gunnarsdóttir: Exactly. It’s like the underreporting of domestic violence — what’s happening in Iceland now feels similar. We’re witnessing changes I never thought possible.
Jacobsen: Can you give specific examples?
Gunnarsdóttir: Take the language around asylum seekers and refugees — that hateful rhetoric would have been unthinkable in Iceland until recently.
Then there’s the legal changes. In March 2023, Parliament passed legislation that — in effect — cuts access to housing and healthcare for rejected asylum seekers 30 days after their application is denied. Previously, they had continued access to basic services while appeals or post-decision reviews were underway.
What’s baffling is why this was necessary. Iceland has had very few severe crime cases involving asylum seekers — perhaps one high-profile violent incident, where non-refoulement meant they couldn’t be deported. So instead, authorities removed international protection status — but still couldn’t deport the person — and then assigned a lower-tier permit with no rights. It’s a punitive measure with no apparent benefit.
What’s driving this? It stems from a desire to apply stricter standards selectively and protect privileges domestically.
Jacobsen: And this measure passed with broad political support?
Gunnarsdóttir: Yes — all major parties, including the Social Democrats, the Progressive Party, and the Center Party, supported it. That’s a significant shift for parties traditionally seen as liberal or rights-respecting.
Now there’s talk of establishing a detention center near the airport for deportations — something Iceland has never had. Why does Iceland need it? It’s a small island country with a population of ~400,000 people. Where would deportees go? It all feels unnecessary and harsh.
And it is not like the situation is not challenging. But they want to build a camp — and they are even planning to place children there. This is despite UNICEF, Save the Children, the Red Cross, and all the major humanitarian organizations in Iceland being in protest. And they are being ignored.
Five years ago, I would have said, “That will never happen.” I would have thought that UNICEF would oppose it, and there would be pushback; at the very least, they would keep children out of it. But no.
Jacobsen: Are these reactionary or more populist parties? Are the leaders mostly men?
Gunnarsdóttir: No. One is a man, and one is a woman. One of them is actually in government , and she’s a woman.
Jacobsen: Are there slurs or epithets in Icelandic that are used when this rhetoric is employed?
Gunnarsdóttir: Yes.
Jacobsen: What are they — or at least, what are their translations?
Gunnarsdóttir: Well, the most extreme one is “Iceland for Icelanders.” That is the harshest. But most won’t say it openly. Instead, they use coded language. They say things like, “We’re fine with immigrants, as long as they’re better than everyone else.” You’re expected to be perfect — to do everything right — to earn even basic shelter.
You have to work, support your family, speak the language fluently after two weeks — you know, all these impossible expectations.
I don’t recall a specific slogan at the moment. Still, it’s the same as what you hear everywhere: “Foreigners get everything for free, and we can’t even take care of our elderly or disabled.” It is a familiar pattern.
So anyway, the phrases we hear a lot now are like: “I’m not against immigrants, but these asylum seekers and refugees…”And then they go on to say they are leeching off the welfare system, bringing in religion that does not belong here, or that they are criminals.
And none of that is backed up by data. There is absolutely nothing — even slightly — that supports those statements. For example, the refugees we received from Venezuela have higher employment participation rates than Icelanders in the same demographic group.
Gunnarsdóttir: They’re the same age, same background — apart from nationality. And yet, a higher percentage of Venezuelans are employed than Icelanders in the same position. But that changed nothing. The government still wanted to get rid of the Venezuelans.
Jacobsen: Why?
Gunnarsdóttir: And they are not even Muslim. That’s the thing. You cannot blame this on anti-Muslim sentiment in that case. And yes, of course, there are a few complex cases — families who struggle to adjust, who face challenges with integration. But those are the exceptions.
Still, people seize on those few exceptions and treat them as if they were representative of the whole. The conservative newspaper here , Morgunblaðið, “The Morning Paper,” runs stories almost daily about these cases.
Jacobsen: How do you spell that?
Gunnarsdóttir: It’s a long word — Morgunblaðið. But the website is short: mbl. Is. It’s very well-known, and many people in Reykjavík still subscribe to it. They claim to be neutral, but they are not. They constantly report on “security issues” in neighbourhoods with high immigrant populations. The narrative is always the same: teenagers are violent, families are not cooperating with schools, etc.
And yes, there may be two or three families experiencing these issues—families who do not attend parent-teacher meetings or are struggling with their children’s education. But it only takes one of those stories, and suddenly people generalize. They start thinking all refugees are like that, all immigrant communities are like that.
It’s tough to combat. Because the statistics do not support these claims, they say the opposite. However, it’s no longer about statistics or facts. And that’s what makes this whole situation anti-humanist.
People no longer care about evidence or human dignity. They are concerned with fear, control, and exclusion.
Jacobsen: What parts of Iceland would you say are most committed to humanist values? Ideologically, all of Iceland considers itself a humanist nation. The core of our national identity has long emphasized equality, human rights, and fundamental freedoms for everyone. That’s how we see ourselves — and it’s how the world has come to see us. So yes, people care about that image. But the tragedy is: we’re slowly destroying that reputation — from the inside.
Jacobsen: What is your vision for Siðmennt moving forward?
Gunnarsdóttir: What I promised to do as President — and what I want to do, and what I think is most important now — is to create interreligious cooperation. We need to work together to uphold our shared values.
For example — and you asked this earlier, but I did not answer it — regarding how the Evangelical Lutheran Church, the national church of Iceland, is perceived, how do they differ from other Christian denominations here?
They are very progressive. The Bishop of Iceland is a woman, Agnes M. Sigurðardóttir. And her successor, or coadjutor bishop-elect, has a transgender child. Indeed, it is evident that the church leadership embodies progressive values.
Jacobsen: That’s raising the platform.
Gunnarsdóttir: Yes — raising the platform, raising the body, as it were.
So, I would say the national church is progressive. For example, we’ve seen news about youth — mainly teenagers around confirmation age — going to church more often.
Jacobsen: And the confirmation age is 14?
Gunnarsdóttir: Yes — 13, 14, 15 years old. They’re attending church again, which wasn’t fashionable two years ago. Now, it seems to have become a trend. We’re not sure where it’s coming from. Some people are concerned that it might be coming from social media influencers, like Andrew Tate or others.
But honestly, if that is the case, I would say I’m relieved they’re going to the state church. Because there, they’ll receive a very different message — one grounded in equality and compassion.
I sing in a church choir myself , which is a little ironic, I suppose.
Jacobsen: What is the name of the choir?
Gunnarsdóttir: Kór Hallgrímskirkju. It’s the choir of Hallgrímskirkja — the large church in central Reykjavík.
Jacobsen: What’s the English translation?
Gunnarsdóttir: Hallgrímur was one of our national heroes. He was a poet — Hallgrímur Pétursson. He did not recite his poems, but he wrote a great deal of deeply emotional and spiritual poetry that is still cherished today. The church is named after him.
And yes, it’s one of the most respected choirs in Iceland, and I sing soprano there.
Jacobsen: Are there many sopranos?
Gunnarsdóttir: Not as many as you’d think. You always need fewer of them than people imagine.
Jacobsen: When I was in choir, we were always short on basses — but they were thrilled to have me. I was thinking the same when you mentioned it earlier — that’s my space. We perform pieces like Mozart’s Requiem and similar classical works.
Gunnarsdóttir: That’s actually why I joined the choir. I love classical music, and much of it is religious , Christian in particular. But I do not mind that. It’s deeply emotional. Spiritual music is often the most beautiful and moving. Honestly, it’s one of the most rewarding aspects of religion.
Jacobsen: Yes.
Gunnarsdóttir: When I ran for President of the Humanist Association of Iceland, I worried they might have a problem with me singing in a church choir. But I think they understood.
Jacobsen: George Carlin once said that the only good part of religion is the music. And Nietzsche had that quote — Without music, life would be a mistake. I agree with a lot, but they had their flaws. I interviewed Kelly Carlin — George Carlin’s daughter — years ago, when she published her memoir. We talked about his parenting. He was a very absent father, and his drug issues were overwhelming at times. So his public image did not quite match the private reality. AndNietzsche… well, he was a troubled person, to say the least.
Gunnarsdóttir: And I have many friends who are musicians. One of them told me, “I can’t write good music if I’m mentally okay. That’s the problem.” He said, “I’m seeing a psychologist, and now that I’m doing well, everything I write is boring. There’s no spark.”
It all comes from strong emotions. But even so, you should be able to create when you’re well. Speaking for myself, I didn’t sing in a choir for a couple of years during the COVID pandemic, and I just felt like I was withering. I was like a flower without sunlight. I didn’t want to get out of bed.
So, I joined another choir. I’ve been in choirs since I was a kid — I have to sing. Like you’ve seen here, I go to karaoke all the time. It’s my form of meditation.
Jacobsen: What’s your favourite karaoke song?
Gunnarsdóttir: That depends on the crowd — whether I’m singing in Iceland or abroad. But if I had to pick one right now… I mean, my go-to song these days is Burn from Hamilton.
Jacobsen: Great choice.
Gunnarsdóttir: Thank you. It depends on the mood. Sometimes I sing for myself; sometimes I sing for the crowd. Those are very different choices. Some songs are satisfying to perform — others are better for listening. But Burn… I relate to it deeply. I feel like I become Eliza when I sing it.
The story behind it is compelling. Hamilton, of course, is about Alexander Hamilton, one of the Founding Fathers of the United States. Eliza Hamilton, his wife, sings the song Burn.
There are numerous written historical sources from that era, especially those about Alexander, as he wrote extensively. Letters, essays, speeches — volumes of material. But when it comes to Eliza’s reaction to a particular scandal — his affair — there’s absolutely nothing. Not a single letter, not a single line. Historians have searched, and the prevailing theory is that she destroyed all the correspondence about it.
So in the song, she says: “I’m burning the letters. I’m burning the memories. Let future historians wonder how Eliza reacted.”
It’s so emotionally rich. First, she sings about how their love made the world feel like it was burning — and then she takes that metaphor and turns it into an act of defiance, burning his legacy of betrayal. It’s devastating and beautiful.
Gunnarsdóttir: And then at the end of the song, she says, “I hope that you burn.” She’s furious — but it is such a decisive moment. The music is incredible. It’s beautiful.
I admire the work of Lin-Manuel Miranda, the writer of Hamilton and other musicals.
Jacobsen: Although Hamilton has been criticized, right? There are some problematic elements.
Gunnarsdóttir: Yes, of course. It’s very problematic. It’s about the founding of the United States, and it casts nearly the entire group of Founding Fathers using actors of colour. I think only two characters are portrayed by white actors. While that was a deliberate artistic decision — and it does something quite powerful in terms of representation — it still glosses over some very uncomfortable historical truths.
Jacobsen: Including issues of age and slavery?
Gunnarsdóttir: It’s still the story of the United States — founded on colonialism, slavery, and exclusion. You could say it’s a kind of historical revisionism. And yet, I still like it. I appreciate the music, the emotion. It’s moving, even with its flaws.
Jacobsen: Do you find, when interacting with people around the world — especially in humanist circles — that there’s sometimes a sense of over-intellectualization? Like, a fixation on clarity and precise language that ends up feeling sterile? Like a Styrofoam cup: perfectly formed, but lacking the vitality and passion of a karaoke song or a choral piece?
Gunnarsdóttir: I would not quite put it that way. But I see what you mean. I think this tension is always there — we humans are both simple and complex. Our ideologies are the same — simple and complex at once. You will always have groups that obsess over the details, and you will always see that it’s the bigger picture that reaches people.
So, I don’t know. It’s about context. There’s a time and place for everything. And sometimes, emotional resonance—through music or story—reaches farther than precision ever can.
For example, I also really liked The Greatest Showman, even though it’s about a highly problematic figure: P.T. Barnum, the man who invented the circus and early versions of the modern zoo. In the beginning, he used disabled people and others seen as “different” to create a spectacle , clearly exploitative.
But in the film, he’s portrayed as this heroic figure who gave marginalized people opportunities. And maybe, at that time, it felt that way for some. I don’t know.
However, it isn’t very easy. The story is sanitized, emotional, and inspiring — but the reality behind it is much messier. It’s like many “progressive” portrayals: they’re uplifting, but they risk simplifying ethical debates in ways that’re too simplistic.
Jacobsen: It reminds me of specific secular or philosophical conversations , especially about equality. Someone might say, “It was revolutionary to promote equality in the first century or the seventh century,” and the response is always: “Yes , for the first century. But we’re not in the first century anymore.” That’s the tension. It’s like freezing an ethical stance in time, then wrapping it in transcendental language. It feels noble , but it also avoids the real challenge of evolving ethics. And that tension — it’s everywhere.
Gunnarsdóttir: But I think just the fact that these musicals generate discussion is a good thing. The fact that we’re willing to talk about them — that we have open debate around Hamilton or The Greatest Showman — that’s useful. That’s what matters.
The ability to reflect and think critically — that’s at the core of humanism. It’s central to everything: our ability to examine, question, and grow. So yes, maybe there are people who are more fanatical or uncompromising in their critiques than I am — but I respect that too.
Jacobsen: What did your time in Parliament teach you , especially in a country where religion is broadly in decline, and gender equality is achieved mainly in some sectors, though still lagging in others? We could also discuss the Nordic paradox if you’d like. But specifically, from 2021 to 2024, what was the most important takeaway for you?
Gunnarsdóttir: The most crucial lesson — personally and ideologically — was this: all the people elected to Parliament in Iceland, at least in my experience, are there because they genuinely want to improve society.
That was a big realization. They may have different visions of what “better” looks like, but they are not there for selfish reasons , not for personal gain or corruption. Before I entered Parliament, I lived in my social bubble. I think, subconsciously, I believed that the so-called “bad guys” were only there to serve their interests. However, I no longer hold that belief.
Iceland may be different from other countries, of course . Still, for me, this belief became very strong: that all of them, regardless of party, are trying to build a better future.
And what surprised me most is that I made friends across ideological lines — people my social circle would probably despise. However, we became friends because we shared a fundamental value: a desire to improve society. We disagree on how to get there, or on what a good society looks like.
But that shared intention is powerful. It helped me understand others more deeply — and that, in turn, made it easier to communicate my values and goals. Because if you cannot understand someone else’s perspective, it is almost impossible to explain your own in a way that resonates.
Jacobsen: So empathy became a bridge.
Gunnarsdóttir: Exactly. That was the most important lesson: to understand where people are coming from.
Jacobsen: Why? Why do they hold these opinions — some of them so unreasonable?
Gunnarsdóttir: I know. And at first, it felt like wandering through a forest of hidden trolls. But you’re right to ask.
What was fascinating to me was realizing that just as I may find them unethical, they think I — and people like me on the left — are unethical. They see us as disloyal.
For them, loyalty is a core moral value. It’s important to us, too, but we tend to place justice and equality even higher. For instance, when we expose wrongdoing within our political circles, they perceive it as immoral. They view it as a betrayal.
Jacobsen: That’s a very revealing difference in ethical hierarchy.
Gunnarsdóttir: That, in my opinion, is one reason why the left is so often fractured — we value truth and justice over loyalty. Meanwhile, conservatives prioritize loyalty above nearly all else. It’s right there in the root of the word: conserve— to preserve, to remain loyal to what is.
Jacobsen: It’s almost like a political expression of filial piety.
Gunnarsdóttir: I wasn’t sure what that meant when I first heard it, but yes — family loyalty. That’s a perfect analogy.
These same people-the ones with views I disagree with-they are also the ones who ask, “Why aren’t these refugees staying home and rebuilding their own countries?” And it’s not only about rejecting foreigners. Partly, yes, they don’t want them here. However, their ethical framework also states that if their own country were in crisis, they would stay. They would fight. They would endure. They would never abandon it.
So, when someone leaves their country and seeks refuge here, it’s seen as a betrayal of duty and national loyalty. That’s why it feels unethical to them.
When I understood that — when I grasped how their priorities are arranged — it changed everything. I realized that we have different moral frameworks. We’re not speaking the same ethical language.
Jacobsen: That’s a significant shift in perception.
Gunnarsdóttir: It was. And it made me rethink the way I was raised, too. I mean, growing up, my mother—she’s a leftist—would sometimes talk about conservatives in really dehumanizing terms. She described them almost as monsters, animals. And I took that in.
But now I see that they’re not monsters. They may be behaving in ways I find monstrous — especially when rejecting vulnerable people — but they believe they’re doing the right thing. That understanding has helped me connect with others. And I think that connection is crucial.
It’s the only way to bridge divides — by seeing others not as evil but as coming from a different starting point, once we find that shared ground, we can build dialogue.
For example, I’ll say to them: “You believe that for society to be just, peaceful, and stable, we need clear rules that apply to everyone. You believe in the rule of law because it brings order.” And they’ll say, “Yes.”
And from there I say, “Then don’t you also believe that everyone should have the opportunity to correct a wrong decision? That everyone should have the right to seek justice?” And often, they agree. That’s the kind of bridge we need.
Of course. Okay — maybe we can talk about that instead. Instead of saying, “Oh, just feel sorry for those poor immigrants,” — which they will not relate to, because that’s not their core concern — we can talk about how we want our society to function. That’s where we find agreement.
This is how you make progress, even when you fundamentally disagree on other issues. And we’ve lost sight of that. I think we’ve lost sight of the importance of finding common ground. People are no longer interested in it.
It’s become so polarized that now, if you show even understanding of someone else’s perspective, it’s seen as agreement. And that, in turn, brings consequences — social consequences, professional ones. People fear showing empathy because it may be interpreted as betrayal.
Jacobsen: It becomes a kind of moral absolutism: either you agree with me, or you’re the enemy. But there’s an analytical difference between saying, “I understand you,” and “I agree with you.”
Gunnarsdóttir: Yes. And we need to find where we agree, because there are layers to all of our opinions. If we can identify one of those layers where there is alignment, then maybe we can work from there.
That doesn’t mean we’ll always reach a perfect conclusion or a solution that makes everyone happy. That’s not realistic. But simply acknowledging that we have more in common than we often admit — that’s something. And it matters.
Jacobsen: Absolutely, any final comments?
Gunnarsdóttir: Not really. I think in the end, we are all humanists — wherever we come from and wherever we go. We need to realize that. I believe in everybody’s humanity.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Arndis.
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): 2025/08/03
Gytaute Gyneityte is a Lithuanian architect and military conscript who advocates for civic preparedness and national resilience. She speaks passionately about Lithuania’s history, cultural preservation, and defence readiness. Gyneityte emphasizes unity, human rights, and resistance to authoritarianism, drawing on both professional and personal insights into architecture, security, and collective memory. Gyneityte reflects on Lithuania’s resilience, military preparedness, and cultural survival amid threats from Russia. Emphasizing civic unity, historical memory, and democratic values, she expresses hope for Europe’s commitment to human rights and national sovereignty in the face of authoritarian aggression and hybrid warfare.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: You are an architect. Is Lithuania’s architecture also very angular?
Gytaute Gyneityte: I’d say so. Maybe not as much in contemporary architecture anymore, but yes, it is more about the quality of the materials—they use very high-end materials.
Jacobsen: You can see it everywhere: the roads, the cobblestones—everything is done beautifully. One example is in Ukraine, in Kharkiv. The stonework and masonry were done exceptionally well. That is old construction, of course. So, talking about military preparedness—what is your name and title, and how long were you in the military at that point?
Gyneityte: I’m Gytaute Gyneityte. In February 2015, I was conscripted and spent nine months in military service, training alongside other conscripts.
Jacobsen: What did you learn?
Gyneityte: I was assigned to the engineering battalion. Lithuania reinstated mandatory conscription in early 2015, following Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014. As an architect, I opted for the engineering battalion because there might be an overlap with my civilian skills. However, in reality, it was more focused on constructing field fortifications and obstacles.
We trained in handling explosives—detecting, neutralizing, and using them to breach structures. That included learning how to open doors with a charge. Of course, we also received basic military training, which included firearms handling, grenade throwing, physical fitness, and combat drills. That is the core of what the engineering battalion focuses on.
Jacobsen: Now, regarding the threat posed by the Russian Federation—by that I mean the Kremlin under Vladimir Putin, and perhaps vice versa to some extent—how do Lithuanians perceive that threat? How is it characterized, both politically and militarily, especially in the context of a possible escalation of the current conflict?
Gyneityte: We have always viewed Russia as a threat. There was never a time when the possibility of Russian aggression was ruled out. Hybrid warfare—encompassing cyberattacks, disinformation campaigns, and attempts to influence our political system—has been a consistent feature since we regained independence in 1990.
Russia has never been a friendly neighbour. However, since 2014, things have felt more acute and more dangerous. We have been warning the rest of Europe about Russia’s aggressive intentions since the annexation of Crimea. Back then, many European leaders told us we were paranoid. Unfortunately, we were right, and recent events have confirmed that. We have never forgotten the threat Russia poses.
You might have heard of the hybrid tactics involving Belarus. In 2021, the Lukashenko regime began directing thousands of migrants—mainly from the Middle East—toward Lithuania, Poland, and Latvia as a form of state-orchestrated pressure. It was widely interpreted as a retaliatory measure for EU sanctions.
What we did in response was a controversial move. We placed the migrants in detention centers and began constructing barbed-wire fencing along the Belarusian border. While the humanitarian aspect of that response has been criticized, we successfully controlled the situation.
Now, Lithuania has significantly strengthened its border security. We have fortified the borders with Belarus and the Kaliningrad region of Russia, and we continue to invest in military preparedness in cooperation with NATO.
We have, what do you call it—we have suspended parts of the Ottawa Convention, or at least adjusted our interpretation of it, in terms of the use of anti-personnel mines. Now, we are permitted to deploy certain types of landmines for defensive purposes, in coordination with other Baltic countries, as well as Finland and Poland, I believe.
What else? We have established what might be called a Commander’s Reserve or civilian auxiliary units—basically, civilians who receive some basic military training so they can assist the army or the police forces in the event of an emergency.
Generally, public support for the military has increased substantially. Military service and defence are seen much more positively now. Salaries for professional armed forces have also been raised. Conscription is still active. We have a standard nine-month conscription period, and that has not been cancelled. So yes, these are some of the main defence-related efforts underway.
Jacobsen: Now, cyber warfare seems to be Russia’s primary tool of disruption in Lithuania. Is that correct?
Gyneityte: Not only in Lithuania. I think they are doing that across Europe—and beyond. They have been involved in various acts of sabotage throughout the continent.
We had an incident where a plane exploded, and the cause is still under investigation. Events like that always raise suspicions, and unfortunately, the default assumption tends to be that Russian involvement is involved. Russia also regularly interferes in elections across Europe.
Jacobsen: Now, when it comes to Lithuania’s military preparedness, what can the country realistically do in the event of an invasion?
Gyneityte: Realistically, it has long been acknowledged that Lithuania could only hold out for a few days on its own, just enough time for NATO forces to arrive.
The critical vulnerability is the Suwałki Gap—a narrow stretch of land, approximately 60 kilometres wide, that forms the only land connection between the Baltic states and the rest of NATO, specifically between Lithuania and Poland. To the north is the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad, and to the south is Belarus. Everyone knows this is the weak link—Lithuania knows it, NATO knows it, and indeed, Russia and Belarus are aware of it.
Every September—or every two years in September—Russia and Belarus hold extensive joint military exercises known as Zapad (“West”). These drills are essentially rehearsals for potential conflict scenarios in this region. Their maneuvers often simulate actions like securing the Suwałki Gap, which would connect Kaliningrad to Belarus and effectively cut off the Baltic states from NATO reinforcements.
Naturally, we are not particularly enthusiastic about these exercises, and Zapad is scheduled to take place this year. If something were to happen, it could be timed to coincide with those drills. In other words, it would not necessarily be just a drill.
Jacobsen: What about the leadership of Lithuania? Are they issuing public statements to raise awareness—within NATO or through other alliances—that could facilitate military or critical intelligence support?
Gyneityte: We have been very vocal for the past ten years. The Baltic states and Scandinavia, together with Poland, are the ones who truly understand the threat, especially since we are closer geographically and have a better understanding of the Russian culture and language.
So, for years, we have known what they have been saying and planning. For example, Russia recently published a so-called “history” of Lithuania, claiming that Lithuania is not a real country, that our language is fabricated, just like they have done with other former Soviet republics. This was officially signed by Sergey Lavrov, Russia’s Foreign Minister. Yes, that is indeed very concerning. Our politicians always respond to these provocations. In Lithuania, if you go around saying pro-Russian things, you are not going to win a majority of votes. However, our current ruling coalition is somewhat corrupt, which is a concerning development. A protest is planned for Tuesday because our Prime Minister is allegedly involved in corruption.
Jacobsen: What are the allegations?
Gyneityte: A detailed investigative report was conducted by journalists. It revealed that he was living in a costly apartment that did not belong to him, despite having a modest official salary. He also allegedly has business ties that suggest financial misconduct. It is a long story—at least an hour-long investigative piece—but it is packed with information. Moreover, this is not the first time he has been implicated. He has previously been found guilty of corruption.
It was a mess how he got elected, to be honest. So yes, people are worried. However, even with all that, nobody can openly say they want to be friends with Russia or Belarus now. Our laws—and our constitution—do not allow that. Moreover, the public would be furious if anyone were to try.
Jacobsen: How do people in the military talk about these kinds of threats?
Gyneityte: When we refer to “the enemy,” everyone knows who we mean. There is no ambiguity. It is not some vague, abstract threat. It is very clear. It is not hypothetical. We all know who we are preparing to defend against.
Jacobsen: How much of Lithuania’s GDP is allocated to the military?
Gyneityte: As of now, Lithuania is spending over 2% of its GDP on defence, which meets NATO’s target commitment. We plan to increase it even further in the coming years—toward 3%—due to the current security situation. There is a broad consensus that this is necessary.
Jacobsen: How big is the military?
Gyneityte: Currently, Lithuania has approximately 20,000 professional military personnel. The number is approximately 26,000 when including both full-time and reserve forces.
In terms of conscription, we have had approximately 3,000 conscripts each year since February 2015, when conscription was reinstated. That would amount to around 30,000 trained conscripts to date.
We also have the Lithuanian Riflemen’s Union, which is a paramilitary organization. You will want to check the official numbers for that. In addition, there are volunteer forces—our volunteer national defence units. Again, exact figures can be verified, but they represent a meaningful segment of our broader defensive capacity.
Moreover, there is now also the Commanders’ Office—a relatively new initiative that allows civilians to undergo a short training program to prepare them to support military or police operations in emergencies, even in a limited capacity. For comparison, I believe Lithuania’s professional armed forces are now larger than those of Australia.
Jacobsen: That may be true. Australia is interesting, however. In the G20, Canada ranks nineteenth and Australia twentieth in terms of defence personnel size. However, Australia has perhaps the most generous benefits package for military personnel in the G20. Canada might be second-best in that regard. That is why both countries have large incentive programs—they struggle to recruit enough people to meet their targets. Within the Lithuanian context, when people talk about “the enemy,” do you think the political leadership might be corruptible enough to undermine Lithuania during a military incursion? Say, in the event of another so-called “special military operation” by the Kremlin-led Russian Federation, would some leaders offer no resistance? Or would civilians override executive orders and defend themselves regardless, because the political will lies more with the people than the leadership?
Gyneityte: Option number two. If we had the same kind of government for the past thirty years, maybe things would be different—perhaps we would be more brainwashed, or living in some grey zone politically. However, it is now a matter of black and white. In Lithuania’s history, the Singing Revolution took place on January 13, 1991. Sausio 13-oji. That was a critical moment.
So, to give an example: on January 13, 1991, Soviet tanks entered Lithuania. Civilians—many of them unarmed—came out to defend the parliament building, the television tower, and the national broadcaster.
In that case, they formed human shields—standing in large crowds around these buildings so the tanks could not proceed without running them over. There were thousands of people. You have no idea how many came out. They stood out there all night in minus-20-degree weather, singing songs, drinking coffee and tea, doing whatever they could to stay warm—and to stand their ground peacefully.
It was such a scary time. Moreover, I was not even born yet, but I cry every year. I put a candle on the windowsill, and we do this every year in remembrance of them. To give you an example: people from all over Lithuania came—no guns, no formal preparation—just to stand there and defend strategic buildings with their bodies. Moreover, I truly believe the same would happen today.
No doubt in my mind—crowds would appear again. This cab driver once told me that he was at the TV tower that night. Moreover, the radio host said, “It is a cold night. If anyone living near the TV tower can welcome people in for some tea, to warm up, please do. Moreover, put a candle on your windowsill.” Moreover, the cab driver said, “I looked around, and there was not a single window without a candle.”
That is who we are. This is our main existential threat—Russia. Moreover, we know just how expensive our freedom has been—our independence. We have been losing and regaining it for centuries. The fact that we have kept our language—even when it was banned—our alphabet, our traditions, including our Christmas celebrations, all of it was outlawed. Russia tried to erase us—our history, our culture, everything. However, we kept it. We still speak Lithuanian. We still have our country. That is a miracle. Moreover, I believe it shows we will maintain this miracle, no matter what happens.
Jacobsen: Are there different gendered experiences of this history? I mean, the Singing Revolution, the threat of Russia, the military—do men and women carry different memories, perspectives, or sentiments about these events? So, how might men think and feel about this history versus how women might?
Gyneityte: No, I do not believe there is a significant difference. After World War II, during the partisan resistance, the Russians killed a lot of Lithuanian men. Women had to step up in their place. During Soviet times, everyone, regardless of gender, was considered a worker.
That is why I think we have made relatively good progress on gender equality. Not perfect, not great—but not terrible either. I do not think men or women fought more or less for freedom. It was the same enemy, and it was the same difficult life, no matter your gender.
Jacobsen: Any final thoughts?
Gyneityte: I do not know—maybe a message of hope. I believe that we can be united and work together. That we can choose human values—and not succumb to dictatorships, fake news, propaganda, or fear. I still have much hope that Europe remains a place that fights for human rights.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Gytaute.
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): Skeptic Society Magazine
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/04
What was the primary research question?
Pew Research Center conducted this study to better understand the religious and spiritual beliefs, practices and views of the growing number of people around the world who are religiously unaffiliated (meaning they say they are atheist, agnostic or “nothing in particular” when asked about their religion). A separate, recent Pew Research Center report found that the number of adults who are religiously unaffiliated (also called religious “nones”) has climbed rapidly in the recent past across North America, Europe, parts of Latin America and some countries in the Asia-Pacific region, such as Australia and South Korea. “Nones” are the world’s third-largest religious category, after Christians and Muslims.
We particularly wanted to look at the internal diversity among “nones.” In this study, for example, we looked at differences in the beliefs and practices of this group by gender.
The breadth of this survey allows us to shine a light on the complexity and differences among “nones” as a group — both within countries and across the countries studied.
How did the primary question shape survey design and country selection?
This report is part of an ongoing series of international surveys focused on religion that Pew Research Center conducts as part of the Pew-Templeton Global Religious Futures project. The project, which is funded by The Pew Charitable Trusts and the John Templeton Foundation, is an effort by the Center to understand religious change and its impact on societies around the world.
Given that the global population of religiously unaffiliated people has continued to grow in recent years, we wanted to use this survey to look at “nones” across different regions and cultures. Indeed, we could analyze the beliefs and behaviors of “nones” in countries from all six inhabited continents.
Our study finds quite a bit of variance from country to country. It also reveals that religiously unaffiliated people aren’t necessarily devoid of religious beliefs and practices. In fact, many “nones” hold religious or spiritual beliefs and participate in religious or spiritual activities.
For example, in all 22 countries we examined in this report, about a fifth or more of “nones” believe in life after death. The shares of unaffiliated adults who say there is definitely or probably an afterlife range from 19% in Hungary to 65% in Peru. Many religiously unaffiliated adults also express belief in God. This includes solid majorities of “nones” in South Africa (77%) and several countries in Latin America, such as Brazil (92%), Colombia (86%) and Chile (69%). On the other hand, religiously unaffiliated adults in Europe and Australia are much less inclined to believe in God. Just 18% of “nones” in Australia, 10% in Sweden and 9% in Hungary are believers.
We also wanted to look at how many “nones” express a consistently secular outlook, saying they believe neither in God nor in an afterlife nor that there is “something spiritual beyond the natural world.” In Sweden, where 52% of adults are religiously unaffiliated, around half of “nones” (or 28% of the country’s total adult population) express nonbelief in all three of these measures. Other places where relatively large shares of adults are “nones” expressing such nonbelief are Australia (24%), the Netherlands (24%) and South Korea (23%).
Why publish detailed results for 22 of 36 countries?
While the report is based on surveys in 36 countries, we focused this analysis on the 22 countries where our surveys had large enough samples of religiously unaffiliated adults to break out and analyze their results separately. (Religious “nones” make up 5% or fewer of adults in the remaining 14 countries.)
The relatively large samples of religiously unaffiliated adults in the 22 countries enable us to dive deeply into the diverse attitudes, beliefs and practices across places representing an array of religious and cultural traditions – from Germany and Mexico to Singapore and South Africa.
How did you define “atheist,” “agnostic,” and “nothing in particular” to keep meanings consistent across languages? How were belief items tested for conceptual equivalence across cultures?
In our surveys, we generally rely on respondents’ self-identification when categorizing them into different religious groups. For example, in the United Kingdom, respondents are asked: “What is your current religion, if any? Are you Roman Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Jewish, atheist, agnostic, something else or nothing in particular?” In every country surveyed, atheist, agnostic and “nothing in particular” were read aloud as answer options, and respondents who gave any of those three answers are considered religiously unaffiliated. (The religiously unaffiliated group also includes a handful of respondents who said they were “something else” in the initial question. When they provided more detail about their religious identity, their answers suggested they belonged in the religiously unaffiliated category and we categorized them accordingly.)
Cross-national studies like our “nones” study pose special challenges when it comes to ensuring the comparability of data across multiple languages, cultures and contexts. We work with local, reputable survey research organizations to collaborate on questionnaire design and survey administration. We also consult with linguistic and cultural experts to make the questionnaire as easy as possible to translate into other languages and to implement in other cultures so that we can compare findings across different countries. For each language we survey in, the survey questionnaire is translated by local teams, and then another translator from an independent agency reviews the translation. The translation is not considered final until both groups of translators are happy with it.
Which cross-national findings about beliefs among “nones” remain most robust?
In general, religiously unaffiliated people are less likely to hold spiritual beliefs, less likely to engage in religious practices, and more likely to take a skeptical view of religion’s impact on society than are Christians, Muslims and people who identify with other religions.
Still, sizable percentages of “nones” do hold some religious or spiritual beliefs. As I noted before, across the 22 countries analyzed in this report, about a fifth or more of religiously unaffiliated adults believe in life after death – including nearly two-thirds of “nones” in Peru.
Meanwhile, smaller shares tend to engage in the religious practices we asked about in this survey. For example, only about a fifth or fewer of “nones” say they light incense or candles for spiritual or religious reasons in most of the 22 countries.
Another important point to keep in mind is that in nearly all these countries, the largest subgroup of “nones” is people who say their religion is “nothing in particular,” rather than those who identify as atheist or agnostic. In the United States, for instance, 19% of adults identify religiously as “nothing in particular,” compared with 6% who are agnostic and 5% who are atheists.
Which demographic patterns among “nones” (age, gender, education) recur across countries?
In most of the 22 countries we analyzed, adults ages 18 to 39 are much more likely than older adults to identify as “nones.” For instance, 72% of Japanese adults under 40 say they are atheist, agnostic or “nothing in particular,” compared with 50% of older adults.
In general, adults with more education are somewhat more likely than those with less education to be religiously unaffiliated. For example, 28% of Argentine adults who have at least a secondary education are “nones,” compared with 18% of Argentines with less education.
And in nine of the countries analyzed, men are more inclined than women to say they have no religion. In the United Kingdom, for example, 51% of men are “nones,” compared with 40% of women.
When we look among religiously unaffiliated adults specifically, women generally are more likely than men to hold most of the religious and spiritual beliefs we asked about in the survey. This gender gap occurs in more than a dozen countries on the question of whether parts of nature can have spirits or spiritual energies. In Australia, for example, 60% of women who are “nones” believe this, compared with 31% of “nones” who are men.
Similarly, among “nones,” women typically are more likely than men to believe in reincarnation – defined in the survey as the belief that “people will be reborn in this world again and again.” For instance, unaffiliated women in South Korea are about twice as likely as unaffiliated men to believe in reincarnation (36% vs. 16%).
However, unaffiliated women are more likely than unaffiliated men to believe in God in only four of the 15 countries with sufficient sample sizes to analyze differences by gender. And among Swedish “nones,” men are somewhat more likely than women to express belief (13% vs. 6%).
Within Pew Research Center’s nonadvocacy remit, what planned analyses should readers use in the future to deepen understanding of the unaffiliated?
Pew Research Center plans to continue studying “nones” around the world, including their demographic makeup by age, gender and education, and how their share of global and national populations is changing. In addition, we’re interested in how the views of “nones” may be changing – whether their beliefs, behaviors and attitudes on various issues are evolving and, if so, how. We hope to repeat some of our previous survey questions periodically to measure change over 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): Bishop Accountability
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/02
How does trauma-informed storytelling empower survivors of clergy and cult abuse through narrative agency and psychological healing?
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.https://c820bf8c4bac7639ec28d18d382c3f51.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-45/html/container.html
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): СокальINFO
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/01
СокальINFO is a Ukrainian online news outlet that positions itself as an independent information agency with a focus on Western Ukraine. Founded in 2015, it built its reputation on delivering sharp local and regional coverage while also publishing translated or republished stories that tackle broader subjects—from political developments and financial fraud to geopolitics and culture. Its multilingual approach, with content appearing in Ukrainian, Russian, and English, has helped it reach a diverse readership at home and abroad.
In this interview, СокальINFO reflects on its origins dating back to 2011, when it evolved from modest Lviv-region coverage into a project dedicated to Western Ukraine and investigative reporting. Over time, its mission has shifted from grant-backed experimentation to self-funded journalism that exposes corruption, crypto-related fraud, and geopolitical schemes—particularly sanction evasion by Putin’s oligarchs after Russia’s full-scale invasion. Operating with a lean team of five to eight journalists and two fact-checkers, the outlet safeguards anonymity amid wartime threats to media workers. Despite a modest audience of roughly 30,000 monthly readers, its stories are widely reprinted.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Your website carries a patriotic manifesto. The purpose: “unite the community.” How was СокальINFO started?
СокальINFO: We started our fascinating journey covering news from the Lviv region, and later expanded to global news coverage in 2011. Projects changed, and over time, the main project became Sokalinfo.
Jacobsen: Has the mission evolved since its inception?
СокальINFO: Sokalinfo changes every year. At one point, the project received grants. Later, we had to earn our own money.
Jacobsen: СокальINFO focuses on “current news of Western Ukraine.” You have areas of focus on international scandals, crypto frauds, and geopolitical exposés. What drives these areas?
СокальINFO: We fight for truth, against deceit, fraudsters, and corrupt officials. This is the mission of our project, which employs from 5 to 8 people depending on the possibilities of a given month. After the mad Putin attacked Ukraine, we had to cut back our other projects and focus on exposing the evasion of sanctions by Putin’s oligarchs.
Jacobsen: Do you have in‑house reporters, editors, or fact‑checkers?
СокальINFO: Yes, we have two people who handle fact-checking.
Jacobsen: Why is editorial and publishing anonymity important during wartime?
СокальINFO: The reason is simple: after the war started, every person in Ukraine could be easily killed.
Jacobsen: Your readership spans the United States, Ukraine, the UK, and other countries. How do you measure engagement and impact?
СокальINFO: Many reprint our articles. However, the audience is narrow — no more than 30,000 readers per month.
Jacobsen: How does your organization navigate Ukrainian media laws with international hosting regulations?
СокальINFO: We comply with all jurisdictions, but we never succumb to fraudsters seeking to pressure independent journalism.
Jacobsen: Any final thoughts for others wishing to cover news or distribute republications as an archival resource in Ukraine or externally in support of Ukraine?
СокальINFO: Since the war began, Ukraine has become the most cited country in the world, and the Ukrainian language is beautiful, as is English. We want the Ukrainian language to someday become international within reasonable limits. And it will, because more than 20 million Ukrainians live in 50 countries worldwide.
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): СокальINFO
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/01
Belkis Wille is an associate director at Human Rights Watch, specializing in Ukraine and international humanitarian law. She leads investigations into civilian harm, conditions in occupied territories, and accountability for violations by all sides. Human Rights Watch’s Ukraine portfolio spans the documentation of short-range drone strikes and other attacks on civilians, Russian detention abuses, including torture and sexual violence, and the forced Russification of education for children in occupied regions. Current investigations focus on Russian authorities’ seizure of homes, the treatment of Ukrainian children inside Russia, and the effect of aid cuts on humanitarian operations. Wille has also contributed to reports on the execution of prisoners of war, unlawful weapons use, and the impact of infrastructure attacks on essential winter services. Human Rights Watch emphasizes survivor-centered fact-finding in all its work.
In this interview, Wille describes how short-range drone warfare has intensified into a leading cause of civilian casualties, with deliberate quadcopter strikes along the front lines. Russia’s winter assaults on infrastructure—and its public posting of strike footage—are intended to instill fear. Meanwhile, aid cuts have strained mobile medical teams, though donors continue to sustain food and water support. Education remains imperiled by power outages and enforced Russification in occupied areas. Research challenges persist due to limited access to these regions. Wille also underscores that Human Rights Watch documents Ukrainian violations, including the mistreatment of Russian prisoners of war, the use of antipersonnel landmines and cluster munitions, and media distortions that misframe air-defense debris as offensive attacks.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Thank you for joining me today. What have been some significant changes in Russian tactics over the past six months, whether in targeting civilians or civilian infrastructure?
Belkis Wille: Russian forces have targeted civilian infrastructure in areas near the frontline and in the West of the country since the beginning of the full-scale invasion. That was one of their main military aims early on. These attacks have continued and, over the past three years, have fluctuated in intensity, but this is not a new dynamic.
What has changed quite significantly, however, is the way in which Russian forces are delivering munitions in frontline areas and in the West of the country. These tactical choices have led to an increase in civilian targeting and deaths. In particular, I’m referring to drone warfare.
At present, short-range drone attacks account for a large share of civilian harm. In January 2025, UN monitors attributed about 27 percent of civilian deaths and 30 percent of injuries to short-range drone attacks. Early in the invasion, drones were responsible for a much smaller share. This demonstrates a significant change in how drones are being used to target and kill, and the intensity of such attacks has increased since mid-2024 and through 2025.
Jacobsen: So, just over a year now. Has this targeting been indiscriminate, or are there specific areas where they’re focusing more heavily?
Wille: When we talk about the use of drones—specifically quadcopters and other short-range drones, which are distinct from the larger military drones such as the Shaheds and others sent deeper into Western Ukraine—we’re referring to drones equipped with live camera feeds. These drones identify individuals, follow them, and then drop ammunition directly onto them. In these cases, we are talking about deliberate targeting of civilians rather than indiscriminate attacks. We have observed such attacks along the front line.
This can be explained by the fact that short-range drones operate over relatively limited distances near the front line, with range extended in some cases by relays. We have seen certain areas along the front line where Russian forces are using this tactic more frequently than in others. Several factors, such as the presence of large civilian populations, can explain that variation. In some parts of the contact line, all civilians have already left.
In other cases, these attacks occur in areas where Russian forces have specific military objectives—for example, clearing out a particular city or village. They use short-range drone attacks as a means of forcing the civilian population to leave more quickly.
Jacobsen: Targeting civilians is typically a terror tactic. Is this also intended to break morale?
Wille: Russian forces have carried out many actions that appear aimed at terrorizing the civilian population and breaking morale. Among these are attacks on infrastructure in cities, particularly during the winter months, when a lack of access to electricity, gas, and heating has the greatest impact. In areas where drones are used, the constant presence overhead is clearly intended to intimidate people, in addition to pushing them out.
Furthermore, we have observed that Russian units conducting these attacks often publish videos of them—with captions—on social media groups they know are used by Ukrainians.
Jacobsen: What about food and water shortages, and access to healthcare? How are those expected to look in the coming winter months?
Wille: The U.S. aid cuts, which have had a global impact—and, I would say, have affected Ukraine less than many other countries—still have had a significant effect. Until this spring, the U.S. government funded the entire budget of Ukraine’s Center for Disease Control, for example. The U.S. government was also funding large portions of the Ministry of Health’s activities, and, of course, contributing to the World Health Organization and other UN and humanitarian partners that support the healthcare system.
Those funding reductions have real consequences, particularly for mobile medical teams that provide urgent care in frontline areas. What Ukraine has had to do, instead of terminating those services, is move money from elsewhere to cover the funding gap. So those services will persist, but at a cost—and some programs will inevitably need to be scaled down somewhat.
Access to food and water is still supported by international donors. Despite the global cuts to humanitarian aid, Ukraine has felt the impact less than many other countries. Along the front line, because the contact line has been moving more slowly than earlier in the conflict, fewer civilians remain. Therefore, fewer people are available to serve in challenging and dangerous environments.
As a result, the government has been able to meet the needs of many displaced people who moved some time ago and are now living in urban centers that can receive assistance. But like every country, Ukraine is having to compensate for global funding cuts.
Image taken from early in the war.
Jacobsen: What about education? Children have a right to education, yet many have faced frequent interruptions since Russia invaded. In the winter months, with power outages, what will be the likely outcomes for this school year?
Wille: Power cuts, as you mentioned, have many consequences, including for children attending physical schools—whether in their home regions or in the places they’ve been displaced to. Some children have tried to continue their education online with the schools they attended before displacement. In that context, power cuts seriously impede access to learning.
There are also children in occupied territories who have tried to continue participating in the Ukrainian education system online. On that side of the contact line, power outages again severely impact their ability to study. At the same time, we’re seeing Russia intensify efforts to complete the Russification of occupied territories, and that includes imposing the Russian curriculum and language in schools.
The curriculum in occupied territories—from primary through secondary school—has been entirely replaced with the Russian system. Students and parents are having to make tough choices, particularly those who grew up in and are from these occupied regions. Their decision to stay or leave will fundamentally affect their ability to pursue education and employment later.
If they choose to stay in occupied territory, they only have access to the Russian education system. That means that even if, at age eighteen, they wanted to cross into Ukrainian-controlled areas, they might not be able to do so academically because they lack the necessary Ukrainian credentials or educational background. This is increasingly becoming one of the lasting consequences of prolonged occupation.
Jacobsen: What about the dynamics of a war economy—reconstruction demands, black market activities, and corruption risks? Has Human Rights Watch covered that?
Wille: We generally don’t carry out corruption investigations as an organization, either in Ukraine or globally. It requires a particular kind of expertise, and other organizations—such as Transparency International—are much better suited to it.
Obviously, like most humanitarian and human rights organizations, we’ve condemned steps by the Ukrainian government that appeared to impede the work of anti-corruption agencies. But beyond that, we haven’t conducted research into corruption or black-market activities.
Unarmed civilian killed by Russian forces in Bucha. (Reuters)
Jacobsen: What about disinformation campaigns? How severe are they, and what’s been their trajectory?
Wille: It’s an important question, but again, not one we’re best positioned to answer. We do see disinformation and misinformation campaigns, particularly those spread through Russian-controlled media and social networks, targeting people in occupied territories. Because we don’t have physical access to those areas, we have minimal ability to track these trends systematically or verifiably.
It isn’t easy to know how these campaigns have evolved or what their precise impact on civilians has been. The messages often include false claims about what will happen if people leave for Ukrainian-controlled territory or whether they’ll come under attack from Ukrainian forces. These efforts have multiple strands, and while we know they exist, we cannot measure their overall effect without on-the-ground access.
Jacobsen: A good follow-up from that might be: where are the most significant gaps in information gathering for human rights organizations? In other words, where are the blind spots?
Wille: The most significant gap when it comes to documenting abuses in occupied territories is access—plain and simple. Because we can’t safely enter those areas or speak freely with people still living there, it’s impossible to collect sufficient, verifiable information to produce a complete picture of abuses.
We’re currently conducting new research into housing, land, and property rights in occupied territories, as Russian-installed authorities have increasingly tried to strip displaced Ukrainians of property ownership. For example, suppose a person doesn’t appear in person within a specific time frame. In that case, their property can be seized and reallocated. This has become a mechanism for expropriating the homes of people who have fled to Ukrainian-controlled areas.
We’re trying to understand the scale of this issue, but conducting comprehensive research is extremely difficult. Again, the primary limitation is access. We have to rely on a smaller number of people who have left the occupied territories and can share information safely.
Jacobsen: On the subject of children, what is the current status of those who have been abducted or transferred, particularly regarding swaps, health, and safety?
Wille: There are a few organizations in Ukraine that have worked very hard over the years to locate and bring back children who were taken to Russia or Russian-controlled territories.
These organizations have had some successes—they’ve brought back dozens of children. The experiences of those children while in Russia have varied depending on where they were held and how they were treated. What we’ve been hearing more recently, particularly regarding teenagers, is that some were sent to Russian military summer camps.
These camps are presented as youth programs but often serve as recruitment and militarization centers. Many of the children who return from Russia require time and support to readjust to everyday life in Ukraine. Several Ukrainian organizations are doing excellent work by establishing rehabilitation programs to support the reintegration.
That said, there are still thousands of children in Russia or Russian-occupied territories. The longer the time passes, the harder it becomes to locate them. No one has a complete picture of where all these children are—whether they’ve been absorbed into the orphanage or adoption systems or placed elsewhere.
Jacobsen: In terms of human rights abuses by Russian forces, what does Human Rights Watch identify as the most serious and enduring ones to emphasize?
Wille: The targeting and killing of civilians are among our top priorities for documentation and accountability. We’re also focused on various forms of ill-treatment, including torture and sexual violence, against civilians in areas under temporary or prolonged Russian occupation.
These abuses extend to Ukrainians taken to Russia and held in detention, both civilians and prisoners of war. The UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission, which has interviewed nearly all returning POWs and civilian detainees, has reported an alarmingly high prevalence of torture and, in many cases, sexual violence. Ensuring accountability for those subjected to such treatment is critical.
Jacobsen: That brings us to another serious area of concern—sexual violence as a weapon of war. How widespread is this?
Wille: At the beginning of the full-scale invasion, there were many reports of rape and sexual violence committed by Russian soldiers. Early claims suggested tens of thousands of cases had been reported to the Ukrainian Ombudsperson’s Office. However, the Ombudsperson later resigned after it became clear that the methodology for counting these cases was flawed, and the scale was much lower than initially stated.
That said, confirmed cases do exist, and we have documented several. The exact number is less important than ensuring that those who were victims of these crimes have access to justice and accountability. Rape and sexual violence are recognized as war crimes under international law, and ensuring redress for survivors is an essential part of the broader accountability process.
What we’ve seen developing over time, and what has become far more prevalent, is the use of sexual violence against people in Russian detention. That’s distinct from the reports of sexual violence committed by Russian soldiers during the invasion in communities they temporarily controlled. In detention facilities, sexual violence appears to be used routinely as a method of torture, coercion, and humiliation.
A dog sits by its owner, who was shot and killed by Russian forces in Bucha. (Reuters)
Jacobsen: What about propaganda and hate speech? How are those progressing in terms of violations of human rights standards?
Wille: Hate speech has been a core element of Russian state doctrine since 2014. It has been used systematically in domestic and occupied-territory messaging as a means of justifying aggression against Ukraine. This includes dehumanizing language directed at Ukrainians and their national identity—portraying them as “Nazis,” “traitors,” or “subhumans.”
Unfortunately, that rhetoric hasn’t subsided. It continues to function as a justification tool for the Kremlin’s actions in Ukraine. Polling data from within Russia shows this approach has had an effect: large segments of the population have internalized these narratives and see the invasion as legitimate or necessary.
Jacobsen: Let me frame this differently. What human rights violations has Russia been least liable for? In other words, what are the areas where public perception of wrongdoing may not match the evidence?
Wille: There have been numerous reports of Russian attacks on schools and hospitals. In our investigations, we found that while there have indeed been many such incidents, in many cases, there was either a legitimate Ukrainian military target in or near the area, or the damage resulted from Russia’s use of inherently indiscriminate weapons systems—such as cluster munitions or unguided rockets—that scatter shrapnel widely.
In the early stages of the full-scale invasion, organizations such as UNICEF and the United Nations released figures on the number of schools and hospitals affected. The phrasing of those reports sometimes gave the impression that each incident represented a deliberate strike against civilian institutions. Our findings indicate that deliberate targeting of schools or hospitals has occurred, but far less frequently than those early reports might suggest. In most cases, the damage was collateral—caused by indiscriminate or reckless attacks rather than intentional strikes on civilian facilities.
Jacobsen: Another angle that often comes up, particularly in more private discussions, concerns media coverage. Some Ukrainian observers argue that the West selectively emphasizes or downplays certain narratives. What does Western media typically get right, what do they get wrong, and what do they tend to miss entirely?
Wille: Most reporting has been excellent and largely accurate in capturing the realities on the ground in Ukraine for ordinary people. Where Western media has fallen short—and I don’t necessarily blame individual journalists, but rather the editorial structures of major outlets—is in their near-total lack of interest in documenting abuses committed by Ukrainian armed forces.
At Human Rights Watch, we investigate and report on abuses by all sides in a conflict. But Western media coverage has overwhelmingly focused on Russian abuses while virtually ignoring Ukrainian violations, such as the mistreatment of prisoners of war or unlawful use of antipersonnel landmines and cluster munitions.
As for what’s been misrepresented, I’d say one key issue is how some attacks are framed. For instance, an attack may occur in an area where there’s a legitimate Ukrainian military target. Yet, the reporting sometimes presents it as a deliberate strike against civilians—suggesting Russia intentionally targeted a neighborhood to terrorize the population. In some cases, there’s little acknowledgment that a military installation or infrastructure site was nearby.
Ukraine has positioned several military assets within large urban centers, which inherently puts civilians at greater risk. When Russian forces attack those areas, civilians are sometimes caught in the crossfire.
Take the recent attacks in cities like Kyiv, Lviv, and others in western Ukraine over the past year and a half. You might see an apartment building hit, resulting in civilian deaths, with no apparent military infrastructure visible. The narrative in much of the Western press tends to assume Russia deliberately targeted that building. However, in many of these cases, investigations show that the building was struck after Ukrainian air defences intercepted incoming munitions—whether drones like the Shahed series or ballistic missiles—and debris from those interceptions caused the destruction.
So while the civilian deaths are tragic, they sometimes result from the interception process, not an intentional Russian strike on that specific building. That distinction is rarely made in mainstream reporting. To be clear, this doesn’t absolve Russia of responsibility for launching attacks in the first place, but it does mean the narrative of deliberate targeting can be misleading.
Jacobsen: You mentioned some areas of inquiry that Human Rights Watch wants to expand. What are the regions you would most like to access, but currently can’t?
Wille: It always comes back to the occupied territories. That’s where the most significant information gaps remain. We need access to investigate the full scope of Russian abuses, including how Russian or proxy authorities are conducting so-called “law enforcement” operations—how arrests are made, how detainees are treated, and what happens to those transferred from occupied Ukrainian territories to prisons in Russia.
There are enormous gaps in understanding that system and the abuses likely occurring within it. And because of this lack of access, we’re also missing another crucial area of inquiry: Ukrainian attacks in occupied territories or even within Russian territory that may kill or injure civilians. These incidents are far less documented, and without firsthand investigation, we can’t form a complete picture of the conflict’s toll on all civilians affected, regardless of which side they live under.
We know that Ukraine is conducting attacks across the contact line and into Russian territory using drones, antipersonnel landmines, cluster munitions, and other weapons. What we haven’t been able to document well are the civilian impacts and potential unlawful attacks carried out by Ukraine in those territories.
Jacobsen: What have been the main human rights abuses committed by Ukrainian forces?
Wille: Unfortunately, one of the earliest documented violations following the full-scale invasion was the execution and torture of Russian prisoners of war. We have, of course, seen the same from the Russian side—the execution and torture of Ukrainian POWs—but Ukraine’s actions in this regard are equally serious under international law.
We’ve also documented Ukraine’s use of banned weapons systems, including antipersonnel landmines, which directly violates the Ottawa Convention, or Landmine Ban Treaty, to which Ukraine is a signatory. Ukraine has used cluster munitions and antipersonnel mines in civilian-populated areas, including in cities under Russian occupation that still contained Ukrainian civilians.
There have also been disturbing videos showing Russian soldiers apparently attempting to surrender to Ukrainian drones and then being killed, though we have not been able to verify these. These incidents would fall under the same category—unlawful killing of prisoners of war.
In addition, we published a detailed report on the treatment and prosecution of Ukrainians who lived under Russian occupation and have since been charged with collaboration. Many of these charges are vaguely defined and problematic from a human rights perspective.
Most recently, in a large prisoner exchange, Ukraine transferred to Russia not only Russian nationals but also Ukrainians who had been convicted of collaboration charges. We have no way of knowing whether these individuals consented to be sent to Russia or what happened to them after the transfer.
Jacobsen: Before we wrap up, what question do you, as a specialist, never see asked in the media but believe should be?
Wille: I think we’ve covered most of the essential ground. There isn’t one that immediately comes to mind that hasn’t already been discussed here.
Jacobsen: Understood, one final question. I recently published an anthology on antisemitism and its global resurgence. Regarding hate speech and related actions, is antisemitism a concern in Russia, in Ukraine, or the surrounding region in the same way we’re seeing in other parts of the world?
Wille: That’s not an area we’ve monitored closely as an organization, so I can only speak anecdotally. There are certainly instances of antisemitic speech in the Russian Federation. However, I can’t talk to their prevalence firsthand, as I haven’t lived or worked there. In Ukraine, there are also incidents of antisemitism. However, my sense—again, anecdotally—is that it is not at the level Russia has claimed in attempting to justify its full-scale invasion.
Like much of Europe, there are segments of the population in both countries who hold antisemitic views and occasionally express them publicly. But I couldn’t provide a comparative assessment of the scale between Ukraine, Russia, or elsewhere in Europe.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time today, Belkis.
Wille: Thank you, 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): СокальINFO
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/28
Toby Fricker serves as Chief of Advocacy and Communication for UNICEF Ukraine, where he leads media strategy, advocacy, and public information on children’s needs amid the ongoing war. As the principal press contact for the country office, he regularly briefs international media, including at the Palais des Nations in Geneva. Fricker also contributes field reflections for UNICEF channels, documenting the war’s human toll and the resilience of children and families living near the front.
His team’s focus spans a wide range of urgent priorities—winterization efforts, repairs to heating and water systems, maintaining access to education, child protection, cash assistance, and mental health and psychosocial support. A veteran of UNICEF’s global communications network, he previously held senior roles across multiple regions and holds a degree from Staffordshire University.
In this interview, Fricker describes UNICEF’s race to protect children as Ukraine enters its fourth winter of war. The organization is working to keep district heating and water systems running—supporting boiler houses and vodokanals with repairs, efficient equipment, generators, and pre-positioned spares—to avert life-threatening collapses when power grids are struck. It backs schools with grants for urgent repairs and learning continuity, provides cash aid to vulnerable families, and expands psychosocial support through teacher training, social worker hubs, and community-based programs.
Special efforts focus on marginalized children, including those with disabilities, Roma, displaced, and rural families, through child-sensitive budgeting with local governments. Fricker calls for sustained donations and public advocacy to bring abducted and displaced children safely home—and to shield all children as civilians increasingly come under fire.
Toby Fricker and Daryna. (UNICEF)
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: With winter approaching, heating becomes critical. What are the primary needs of Ukrainian children in areas where winters can be harsh?
Toby Fricker: Absolutely. Winter in Ukraine is harsh. This is the fourth winter under the full-scale invasion for children and families across the country. For many in the east, exposure to conflict has lasted far longer. The challenges are immense. Children and families are entering this winter with coping mechanisms already severely strained. The war has caused significant economic disruption—people have lost work, many children have faced interruptions to schooling, and everyday childhood has been upended. Now, with a fourth winter and continuing attacks, strikes can again hit energy and water infrastructure. That has potentially devastating effects on civilians.
UNICEF’s priority is to keep children warm and heating systems running, because system failures in extreme cold become life-threatening. District heating systems—typically city or town networks—serve households, hospitals, schools, and other critical services. We are supporting local boiler houses with more efficient equipment where feasible and ensuring repairs are completed before winter.
Much of this work begins months in advance, even in June, to prepare households and schools. We also provide school grants so administrators can prioritize necessary repairs and upgrades—such as fixing broken windows and purchasing generators, if needed—and cash assistance for vulnerable households in frontline and hard-hit areas. These efforts matter because children are struggling every day. Attacks continue, fear persists, and winter adds another layer of risk to their health and well-being.
Jacobsen: What about hardening repaired systems—using redundancy, modular kits, backup power, and pre-positioned spares? How does multi-stage redundancy or hardening of these systems help during the winter?
Fricker: It really is about strengthening the system. During the summer months, the focus is on working with the vodokanals—the water utility companies—and the municipalities that run these boiler houses. It is about examining the system’s current functioning, assessing its efficiency and effectiveness, and identifying areas where new gas boilers and piping can be installed before winter to ensure the system operates as effectively as possible while minimizing energy usage.
Much of the infrastructure is quite old. It keeps going, but these are aging systems. When piping or networks are damaged, the impact is severe, especially when using outdated equipment. That is why it is crucial to have supplies and equipment in place well before winter, so that if major issues arise or power fails, backup generators can be used immediately to avoid service interruptions.
One of the biggest challenges—now more severe than ever—is ensuring water keeps flowing through the network. In Ukraine’s system, water circulation is critical for heating homes, hospitals, and other facilities. The danger in freezing temperatures, particularly when power is lost, is that water stops flowing, which can cause the heating system to seize. Everything is interlinked. This is a complex task that depends on the incredible efforts of water utility workers, many of whom risk their lives in frontline areas to repair damaged networks or filtration stations. The goal is to ensure they have the necessary equipment, skills, and techniques to perform quick repairs, while also strengthening the system in advance to maximize efficiency.
A boy sits at a bus stop in the village of Dachne, in eastern Ukraine, waiting to evacuate. (UNICEF)
Jacobsen: What about caregivers and teachers—the support for those who need to mitigate burnout or secondary trauma during peak winter stress? Things like training, supervision, or different forms of respite?
Fricker: One of the key issues of the war in Ukraine is what we call a child protection crisis, which is also a mental health and well-being crisis. As you rightly point out, it is not only about children, though that is critical—it is also about caregivers. Parents have been struggling for four years to ensure their children have the essentials for life, can continue learning, and can still connect with peers. There has been huge isolation, especially for children and young people in frontline areas where schools are closed or operating only partially, sometimes in basements or shelters. That isolation has a significant impact on their well-being.
We are working with teachers, social workers, and parents to raise awareness and build capacity on how to support children going through traumatic experiences. We provide training for teachers to help them identify children who may need specialized services and refer them to counselors. We also operate social worker hubs that unite teachers, social workers, and others for training sessions in cities like Dnipro, thereby building local capacity for community-based social services.
Another major program provides small grants to community-based organizations that employ counselors and social workers. The aim is to ensure accessible, high-quality services within communities, particularly during this period of extreme strain.
A wide range of training and grants is being used to strengthen community-level social services. The impact is twofold: immediate psychological support helps children recover and build coping skills while the war continues, and it also strengthens Ukraine’s long-term social service infrastructure. Ukraine’s focus on both humanitarian response and recovery is remarkable, and these efforts are building a system that will continue serving families and communities for years to come.
Jacobsen: Some children are doubly marked in life—first by the circumstances they are born into, and then by the war. Speaking of children with disabilities, internally displaced persons, Roma, or remote rural families, how can those children be reached in terms of accessibility, transport stipends, and language access?
Fricker: You are right. When war happens anywhere, the most marginalized are always the most affected. What is essential is reaching every child—expanding services to reach the last child, the one least likely to be in school. The question we ask is: how do we reach that child to give them the best opportunity possible to keep learning or return to school? That is mainly about bringing services directly to communities and ensuring that social services in those communities—whether in frontline areas or in western Ukraine where many Roma communities live—are supported. We are working specifically with these communities through local organizations to identify existing gaps and find practical ways to close them, helping children return to school, re-enter systems, and participate in decision-making.
One central area of UNICEF’s work, alongside many partners, is with local governments to strengthen children’s participation in decision-making and promote child-sensitive budgeting. That means helping local authorities allocate resources effectively for children: funding education systems, strengthening social services, and ensuring basic utilities like water and sanitation are in place for households. The goal is to make sure children’s voices help shape these priorities—identifying what is missing in their communities and influencing solutions.
These are vital areas of work. In Ukraine, we are seeing positive steps, including firm commitments to protect education sector budgets despite the war. However, we still need to do more. UNICEF, along with many partners, is working to reach the most marginalized children and bring them back into education and community life. So every child has as fair a chance as possible to continue their childhood and recover from this enormous disruption.
Jacobsen: Where are the most significant winter bottlenecks? Moreover, speaking of partners, which noteworthy organizations should be mentioned for their role in easing those bottlenecks or helping mitigate the main limitations?
Fricker: The biggest concerns for the winter are keeping systems running—ensuring power generation continues, which in turn maintains heating capacity for households and essential facilities. Families must also have access to cash assistance to cover specific winter needs for their children and themselves. UNICEF, along with many partners, is supporting local authorities and the national government in this time of extreme need. There has been immense international support—Canada, among others, has provided generous assistance not only to UNICEF but also directly to the government and partner organizations.
The winter response plan is multi-sectoral, aiming to reach over 1.7 million people as part of a broader United Nations and humanitarian effort. The focus is on the most vulnerable families in frontline regions. The question is always: how can we best support these families and the local systems that sustain them? That includes helping the Vodokanals—the water utility companies—keep operations running, supporting the water technicians risking their lives to repair networks even under fire, and aiding those managing municipal boiler houses. UNICEF works to strengthen these systems in advance, ensuring they have the supplies and equipment needed for rapid repairs. Despite immense challenges, they have managed to keep critical infrastructure running throughout the war.
Jacobsen: How can people support UNICEF Ukraine?
Fricker: UNICEF is doing everything possible to reach every affected child, including those already marginalized before the war. It is vital to restore some sense of normality and childhood even amid ongoing conflict. We have received tremendous support from governments and individuals—especially in Canada and across the world—who have stood behind UNICEF and other partners working for child rights and the protection of the most vulnerable children in Ukraine.
We continue to call on people to contribute not only financially but also by raising their voices. Speaking out for the protection of children in Ukraine—and globally—is essential at a time when so many wars endanger them. The sanctity of children’s lives must always be protected. We urge everyone to advocate for their safety and support the life-saving and recovery work being done in Ukraine. Recovery efforts are ongoing and long-term. Wars like this do not just affect children today—they jeopardize access to services and their overall well-being for years to come.
Jacobsen: Toby, thank you for your time and expertise today. It was a pleasure to meet you.
Fricker: That is great. Thank you, Scott, and thank you for your patience in setting everything up. Take care.
Click here to donate to UNICEF.
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): СокальINFO
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/24
In a country where documenting truth has become a form of resistance, Oleksandr Pavlichenko stands at the center of Ukraine’s fight for accountability. As Executive Director of the Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union (UHHRU), he leads one of the nation’s foremost efforts to record war crimes, defend rights, and uphold justice. Based in Kyiv, UHHRU unites a network of human rights organizations that carry forward the legacy of the 1976 Ukrainian Helsinki Group.
Since its founding in 2004, the union has provided free legal aid, pursued landmark cases in domestic courts and at the European Court of Human Rights, and monitored rights violations across the country. In the decade since Russia’s 2014 invasion—and especially after the 2022 escalation—UHHRU has documented thousands of abuses, supported victims, and pressed for reform in concert with international partners. Its network of public advice centers continues to offer legal guidance, issue reports, and train lawyers and activists to reinforce the rule of law even under siege.
In this conversation, Pavlichenko reflects on the painstaking process of documenting atrocities, the dilemmas of transitional justice, and the struggle to sustain legal aid as war stretches Ukraine’s institutions. He explains how UHHRU has verified nearly 90,000 entries in its “Tribunal for Putin” database, working closely with prosecutors and the International Criminal Court. Despite wartime pressures, Pavlichenko underscores UHHRU’s commitment to harmonizing Ukrainian law with the Rome Statute—anchored in verified evidence, international cooperation, and the enduring principle that human rights must place people first.
(Tribunal for Putin)
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Thank you for taking the time to speak with me today. Since the Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union co-founded the “Tribunal for Putin” (T4P) initiative, the database has recorded nearly 90,000 crimes as of March 25, 2025. What process ensures that each entry is verified and credible?
Oleksandr Pavlichenko: We currently have about 89,870 records. Some records are not included in the public database—specifically, cases supported by lawyers. That information is confidential and normally not presented publicly.
Regarding verification, our first approach uses OSINT (open-source intelligence) technologies and methodologies. We collect data from official sources. In several cases, our teams travel to areas such as Chernihiv, Kyiv, Sumy, and sometimes Kherson to verify the extent of damage caused by shelling, bombing, or other attacks.
The second method involves working directly with victims and witnesses. We conduct live interviews with witnesses or victims. Sometimes they approach one of the T4P initiative organizations—such as the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group—or others to request legal assistance.
We receive information from them and provide legal support, which helps us gather more details and legal context for specific cases. For example, today I communicated with the Office of the Prosecutor General and other law enforcement institutions. They often request information on specific cases or categories of crimes. We can provide them with details, practical examples, or facts that may not be available in their criminal proceedings.
We also organize cases by category—either by location (such as the Kherson or Chernihiv regions) or by type (such as material damage, casualties, injuries, or the destruction of specific buildings, such as medical or educational institutions).
This helps us reorganize and analyze verified information. Only verified data is included in the database; unverified information is excluded.
Jacobsen: How are cases prioritized to national prosecutors, including those handled by the ICC?
Pavlichenko: As I mentioned, we categorize the information, but there is no strict prioritization of cases. Usually, it depends on access to the territories. If we do not have access, we cannot conduct detailed documentation or include all materials in the database.
For example, in 2022, we worked on the case of Mariupol. Our public reception office remained there with two lawyers until March 16, gathering information and assisting residents. They were later evacuated. However, we do not have full access to all the information that could have been collected from Mariupol. Many traces were destroyed, and many witnesses and victims are no longer under Ukrainian jurisdiction.
Prioritization depends, first, on our available resources—because they are limited—and, second, on urgent tasks. For example, we received a call from territories near the front line reporting that Russian forces were hunting civilians with drones. This call came directly to our Kherson public reception office. We immediately relayed the information to colleagues at the United Nations, shared contacts, and ensured they had direct communication with local community leaders.
We then provided legal assistance to those affected and collected all related information. Based on that, we prepared a submission to the International Criminal Court (ICC), which helped prompt the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to prepare a report grounded in the data we collected. We also transferred those firsthand contacts to the UN team.
So, the prioritization often comes from ad hoc requests and urgent reports from the ground. Another form of prioritization occurs when we need to prepare specific submissions that will prompt international structures to respond to our ICC filings.
Our main task is to maintain the most complete possible database, with detailed, verified, and legally supported facts that can be used by law enforcement agencies or international partners when needed. This data also serves as an advocacy tool at the United Nations, the OSCE, and other institutions’ conferences and meetings. These verified facts are confirmed not only by us but also by our international partners.
We need to maintain this collaborative track with international partners, ensuring that the facts are legally substantiated and recognized.
Jacobsen: Your nationwide public advice centers continue to operate throughout Ukraine. Where is the demand the highest?
Pavlichenko: Since the pandemic, the specific location of each public reception office has become less critical. However, offices located near the front line—such as in Toretsk, Kramatorsk, and Kherson—have become far more important than, for example, those working primarily with internally displaced persons (IDPs) in Lviv or Rivne in the western regions.
We have qualified lawyers operating in all regions. Some specialize in IDP-related issues, while others focus on documentation and providing direct assistance to the most vulnerable groups of the local population. The scope of work varies from region to region.
At the same time, we are now in a difficult situation because U.S. funding was suspended, which forced us to reduce the activities of several public reception offices, especially in certain regions. We are trying to maintain operations and retain staff in the so-called “hot zones.” Still, it is incredibly challenging under the current circumstances, given the reduction in support from international donors. This remains one of the major challenges for our activities.
Jacobsen: UHHRU remains a leading advocate for transitional justice. At the March 24 conference, discussions centered on accountability, reparations, truth and memorialization, and guarantees of non-recurrence. What kind of commitment or action is now required from local governments—both by the end of this year and into 2026—to move that agenda forward?
Pavlichenko: The core need is not only verbal support but real, practical support for people living in occupied territories. We must seriously consider how to protect and, eventually, reintegrate those people. At the moment, no one can give a clear answer on how to deal with the population in occupied territories or how to prepare both occupation and post-occupation policies.
As I see it, the issue of transitional justice cannot be fully addressed before the end of the war. A national strategy on transitional justice has already been drafted, and we participated in its development. The text exists as a draft presidential decree, but it has not been promulgated or adopted. It was suspended as a special case under a special procedure.
Therefore, when speaking about transitional justice, the first requirement is the establishment of a coherent state policy, which currently does not exist. Once it is developed and adopted at the national level, it must then be implemented and adapted locally—especially in frontline and partially occupied regions such as Zaporizhzhia, Kherson, Donetsk, and Luhansk.
We must seriously consider how to address the legacy of occupation, because it is a heavy burden. For example, there are documents issued by the occupation authorities that are not recognized in Ukraine. Even certificates of birth and death must go through a judicial procedure to be reaffirmed by national courts.
And that concerns only two categories of documents. We are not even talking about the hundreds of thousands—indeed, millions—of other documents issued in occupied Crimea over more than 11 years, or in occupied parts of Donetsk and Luhansk, or in the newly occupied territories that have now been under Russian control for about three and a half years. These situations must be addressed systematically and incorporated into national legal procedures.
Another unresolved issue concerns collaboration—specifically, determining who should be punished for working under occupation, for example, in medical or educational institutions, and who should not. There is still no clear political message or legal guidance for these territories about how and when these issues will be resolved.
Jacobsen: You have flagged systemic shortfalls in payments to wounded servicemembers. Which enforcement levers would close the gap?
Pavlichenko: It is a serious and ongoing problem. It must be addressed and defended at the Ministry of Defense, which continues to support veterans and active servicemembers.
The issue lies in procedures and protocols. These must ensure that veterans, wounded soldiers, those killed in battle, and their families receive consistent and adequate support. Financial compensation mechanisms are relatively well developed, but the rehabilitation system—especially for severely wounded or disabled veterans—requires far greater attention.
Ideally, every wounded or returning servicemember should have a comprehensive support protocol that covers financial, psychological, medical, and social reintegration needs. For example, prisoners of war released from Russian detention are typically offered only about one month of rehabilitation, which is insufficient. In reality, their recovery requires sustained, long-term care and assistance.
The situation is gradually improving, thanks in part to greater involvement from international partners, who now pay much closer attention to this issue and provide targeted support.
However, the core challenge remains: the need for clear, binding protocols consistently applied by the Ministry of Defense. At times, the attitude or implementation by that institution has not met the necessary standards.
Jacobsen: UHHRU lawyers have documented Russia’s use of civilians as human shields, including abducted civilians. Which venues, whether Ukrainian courts, the ICC, or universal jurisdiction, are most likely to hold individuals accountable in these cases?
Pavlichenko: I can give a very brief answer to that question. I do not believe that international structures will handle these cases effectively, and I have little confidence in the usefulness of universal jurisdiction in this context.
I also doubt that the International Criminal Court (ICC) will be able to address this category of crimes specifically, though it might cite isolated examples. In reality, all such cases must be properly investigated and prosecuted within Ukraine’s national jurisdiction.
Whether this will have any tangible impact on Russia as punishment is another matter entirely; even now, there are very few cases where war criminals are physically present in court.
To give you a sense of scale: as of January 1, 2025, Ukraine had initiated around 183,000 criminal cases under Article 438 of the Criminal Code (war crimes, parts A and B). Yet, only 18 individuals have been sentenced in person; the rest have been tried in absentia. This means justice, in most cases, remains largely symbolic.
So, when we talk about justice and accountability, we must think practically about how to establish effective mechanisms to bring perpetrators physically before the courts.
Jacobsen: Since the ratification of the Rome Statute, what is UHHRU’s position on the parliamentary harmonization package and the Article 124 reservation?
Pavlichenko: Regarding Article 124, we publicly opposed Ukraine’s reservation. That reservation limits Ukraine’s acceptance of the ICC’s jurisdiction over certain crimes, and it has negatively affected the country’s international image by suggesting a partial withdrawal from full accountability under the Rome Statute.
As for harmonizing national legislation with international law, that work is still underway, including updates to several articles of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. However, I believe this effort comes too late to affect the current war. Harmonization will not improve the immediate situation in terms of investigating or prosecuting war crimes.
For example, even with these changes, we will not suddenly move from 18 in-person convictions to hundreds or thousands. It will not transform the current justice landscape. Therefore, while we support continued work on harmonization for the future, we must now focus on making the existing legal framework function more effectively in the present.
That remains our position.
Jacobsen: The 2024 national survey maps the growing needs of war-affected people. Which findings reshaped UHHRU programming?
Pavlichenko: The survey was based on responses from people living in both occupied and non-occupied territories. Our organization’s work focused on addressing the consequences of severe human rights violations explicitly committed in the occupied areas.
A special program on transitional justice was developed for implementation in 2025, reflecting the survey’s findings. However, as I mentioned earlier, we face significant challenges in sustaining our core activities—especially in providing legal assistance, which remains central to our mission.
Our ongoing priorities include analyzing current legislation, preparing draft proposals for new laws, and ensuring that these reforms adequately protect the human rights of people living under occupation. This remains a key element of our long-term strategy and our vision for the state’s policy during wartime and beyond.
For us, the principle of “people first” is not merely a slogan—it is the cornerstone of our programming. The survey findings reinforced this by showing a clear public demand to integrate the human dimension into national policy. Unfortunately, that dimension is not always fully considered in governmental decision-making.
Jacobsen: Oleksandr, thank you very much for your time and for sharing these insights 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): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/07/05
I like women’s character of cruelty more than men’s.
There is a sense of taste, proportionality, and purpose under it.
Some men truly are the bull in the China shop.
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): 2025/07/03
I am all in favour of removing this cumbersome proposal of a simulation or self-simulation hypothesis. My inclination is to argue for an improv comedy interpretation of the universe. Nature can do each of the known computations and logics to us. Those logical systems emerged over time in the universe too. Maybe, in a way, non-algorithmic facets of the universe emerged as an outcome of computational processes and then existed in their own right in each individual mind. It’s not that minds were present in the universe, but are present in the universe if we shift the definition of a non-algorithm view and non-origin state for minds to play a role in the universe while this raises a third state of indeterminacy to the universe: the universe’s lack of complete self-interaction with ontological incompleteness, our ways of tapping into it with observation and scientific methodologies for epistemological incompleteness, and the problem of choice creating instability in determination of the future state of the local worldline(s) of the universe and so the universe (which is neither ontological incompleteness nor epistemological incompleteness, but localized worldline/spatiotemporal incompleteness). Quantum logic laid the groundwork for a larger more classical logic to play out in classical physics. I have increasingly grown into the view that atheism and theism are in some sense delimits of a more base representation of the universe, where each definition breaks down into meaninglessness or convergence in some sense. Improv comedy is “Yes, and…” The universe is pulling a joke on us.
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): 2025/07/03
I was walking with a small luggage on wheels and a backpack in 35C heat.
Naturally, I was sweating,
Struggling a bit,
Trudging along.
I saw a bird fly to my left with something in its mouth,
Into the parking lot,
The bush,
The open grass.
Same piece of whatever in its mouth.
On it went,
Out of sight,
never in mind.
How many others have you out of mind like that bird, and vice versa?
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): 2025/07/03
Politically speaking, most have seen this story before.
Quelle surprise.
Another sunrise,
With humans, though?
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): 2025/07/03
They weren’t too special.
Neither, were you.
The moments were, though.
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): 2025/07/03
Some parts of life are harder than others,
And moreso at some times than others.
And that’s okay too.
I mean, hey,
the grass’ll keep growing.
Smell around you:
Breathe.
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): 2025/07/03
You say those words again,
and again and again.
“Then… why?”
I ask.
And so… why not?
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): 2025/07/01
People say quite a lot without words,
women acutely.
It’s a pity,
how little we see of each other.
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): 2025/06/30
When no place is truly home,
any house, in theory,
can be,
a home.
Therefore:
Home is a state of mind,
and a place.
Even my time with my former cats,
Pan and Anna.
Home for nomas.
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): 2025/06/29
Icelandic people are indirect if they don’t like you,
direct if they do,
and honest in either case.
A love affair with an Icelandic person is succinctly described as follows:
A firecracker.
Short, explosive, seen,
and somehow working in spite of the cold,
the rain,
the wind,
Icelandic love affairs are bright, flashy, lovely,
and brief,
as a rose.
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): 2025/06/28
I talked to two gentlemen separately, in-depth.
The language barriers were apparent.
Their backgrounds were completely different.
Their lives untouched by one another.
Yet, they both gave impassioned views of the human rights abuse concerning to them.
It’s a humbling experience to work with such people and to get the narratives.
It’s a good lesson.
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): 2025/06/26
In a region characterized by a patchwork of political systems, diverse governance models, varying standards of moral leadership, and often conflicting interpretations of religious scriptures, an unusual but thought-provoking idea would be to implement a modified version of the Schengen system — allowing freer movement of people and perhaps goods — tailored for the Middle East as a whole. Whether or not a god helps us, I see no reason to act with complacency on items of general realizable benefit for humanity as a whole.
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): 2025/06/26
I used to work at a restaurant of an old friend.
He married an ‘alcoholic’ who had gone through AA.
She used to verbally abuse him every single work day — long-time sober too.
I heard them in the upper part of the business, while I worked in the downstairs for about a month.
I promised myself.
If she ever turned that to me, then I would leave the job.
She did,
so I did.
Another ‘alcoholic’ many years later described her as a “wonderful person.”
It was then that the evidence matched the experience of alcoholics for me:
AA generally doesn’t work — when it does, by accident or other factors — and works on a philosophy of disempowerment and coercive structure to belief in a higher power, previously the Christian God.
When it doesn’t, or secular therapy works, they have a lie that they tell themselves in community: “They were never real alcoholics.”
They socially gaslight themselves and one another — great.
‘Alcoholism’ became an excuse of an elder’s abuse of a junior, in community and on the job.
That’s an important lesson. This was in Fort Langley.
I had a lot of experiences like this in an Evangelical Christian town. Rather than apologize, these seniors and adults of community would socially abuse, and reputationally attempt to dismantle my work.
So, not being established, lacking connections, not having social or professional protections, what do you do in those circumstances?
You take the lesson and move on. “Meek and mild” communities are rarely so. Community as institution will be the first item protected rather than questioning and independent youth.
Ask any individual woman or former young boy sexually abused by clergy in a church, the institution is protected first and the victim is slandered.
Does this make sense? Your life becomes forever different.
Often, clarity comes writ in 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
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/26
I got bit by a Swiss mosquitoe,
upon arrival.
It mumbled something in French exhalation,
then pulled out a lit cigarette.
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): 2025/06/26
So it goes.
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): 2025/06/26
I am firmly convinced softness is innate in the human structure,
And finesse is learned,
Not the other way around.
Broadly speaking,
generalized tact follows from each of these.
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): 2025/06/20
I like the way people melt to certain types of kisses,
and in certain 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): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/20
I remember gardening, again.
An old lady.
A young owl.
A big garden.
A back yard.
Cobblestone paths.
Dew-ready plants.
Green on green,
on green.
“Look, look!”
She said.
“Oh, look, look at the critter!”
What a delight, she felt.
Just us,
and an owl.
A temporary visitor in,
the big garden,
and the owl.
Be that old lady friend,
and who?
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): 2025/06/15
Because numerous have been unequivocally tone deaf.
Then the toxic ideologies filled the gaps.
Welcome to 2025.
And no, none of their architects will take accountability;
that’s the modus operandi of an ideology, a new faith.
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): 2025/11/02
Scott Douglas Jacobsen contends that subjectivity emerges only in life-permitting universes and is inherently limited: finite minds cannot fully model the larger systems that birth them. Mental maps can improve but need not, as delusion, injury, disease, and aging illustrate. Rick Rosnerpushes back on multiverse looseness, arguing that in sufficiently large, natural-order universes, life is likely; only tiny universes preclude it. He asks how knowable any universe is, echoing Feynman on science’s limits. Rosner expects near-term unifying principles but enduring ignorance of particulars given cosmic scale, distances, and timescales. Both land on rigorous curiosity coupled with epistemic humility, ultimately.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Let me lay this out. We’ve had several conversations over the past few weeks, maybe months, and a few ideas are circling in my head. I see a kind of symmetry between life-permitting universes—those where subjective selves emerge during evolution—and the sectionalized counter-entropic emergence of life appearing in pockets of some some life-permitting universes, like we see with certain satellites called Earth. My general principle is that subjectivity, once it arises in a universe supportive of life, is inherently limited within the larger objective universe. The maps that conscious beings make of themselves and the world will always be incomplete, because there isn’t enough information inside their system to represent the whole. So, there’s room for improvement in the fidelity and accuracy of those mental maps, but not an inevitability. Think of cases like delusions, head trauma, infection, or the gradual disintegration of the mind over a lifespan.
Rick Rosner: You mentioned life-permitting universes. I think there’s a framework—maybe not something working scientists dwell on, but it comes up among popular science communicators—suggesting there could be many different sets of physical laws that generate viable universes. Some would allow life, others wouldn’t. I’d argue otherwise. Whether life exists in a given universe depends largely on natural conditions. You can simulate odd universes with contrived physics, but in universes governed by natural order, the fundamental physics is generally similar.
Physical constants may vary with size, local conditions, or other factors, but overall, the structure is consistent. In universes of sufficient scale, I think it’s unlikely that life wouldn’t arise. The laws of physics are rarely strict enough to completely prevent life from emerging in a large universe. A tiny universe—say, one with only 100,000 particles—couldn’t sustain life. But a universe like ours, with roughly 10⁸⁵ particles and billions of years of history, almost inevitably gives rise to it. Now, are you suggesting that life in any universe is inherently incomplete in its understanding of the cosmos simply because of limits of scale and perception? Is that what you mean?
Jacobsen: I mean, if something comes from a larger system, it remains part of that system—just as we are part of nature. The cognitive aspect of that system, the part that constructs mental maps, can’t ever be equivalent to the system itself. In modeling, you can use shorthand—as we do with mathematics—but that’s not what I mean by full-spectrum modeling. The principle I’m trying to pose is that subjectivity, by definition, arises in a life-permitting universe. If it emerges within that universe, which could be vast but still finite, then the smaller finite cognitive system that arises from it can only reconstruct parts of it—with varying degrees of quality and accuracy.
Rosner: Okay, so whether what you’re saying is accurate depends on how knowable the universe is—how knowable any universe is. We’ve only had an inkling of the universe’s overall structure for about a century. A hundred fifty years ago, we didn’t even know there were other galaxies. Maybe some people speculated, but no one had serious evidence. We thought the universe was just one cluster of stars. So it’s still early to know whether we can ever understand the deep, necessary characteristics of any universe.
It’s like that Richard Feynman question I keep bringing up—probably because I read one of his books fifty-five years ago and it stuck with me. He asked: what happens with science? Do we keep discovering new things forever? Do we eventually learn everything? Or do we hit a limit where the universe is simply too complex to fully comprehend?
I think, in general terms, that within the near future we’ll have a broad theory of physics—maybe metaphysics too—that explains almost everything in principle. But when it comes to the specific details of our universe, we obviously can’t know everything. We’ve only been a civilization for a few thousand years, and we’ve barely traveled anywhere in the cosmos.
I suspect a lot of advanced civilizational activity happens near the centers of galaxies, though that’s just speculation. We won’t have a way to confirm it for hundreds, maybe thousands of years. Traveling to the center of our galaxy to check our hunches might take tens or even hundreds of thousands of years.
That’s just within the Milky Way. So yes, we can probably figure out a lot through reasoning and inference, but in terms of concrete knowledge—we’re very far away. I suspect that sufficiently old civilizations might be able to operate across significant distances, perhaps more than one percent of the observable universe’s diameter. That’s about 140 million light-years or more—actually, probably several hundred million light-years in effective scale.
Trying to do anything across those distances would take billions of years, but civilizations might still attempt it, especially if parts of the universe begin collapsing and that threatens their existence. The sheer scale of what would be required to achieve even an incomplete understanding of the universe is staggering. We won’t reach that level unless we’re lucky—or persistent—enough to become a multi-million-year civilization.
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): 2025/11/01
Scott Douglas Jacobsen likens particles to baked bread, emergent from interacting fields. Rick Rosner stresses Heisenberg uncertainty. Context, decoherence, and speculative topological knots frame a 13.8-billion-year interaction braid.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: All right, let’s do a quick one on math. I think analogies help convey ideas really nicely. I’m looking at limitations, of course, but the usual transition in physics education seems to be that undergrads learn about particles, and then in grad school they’re told everything’s actually fields, not particles. You have to unlearn to relearn.
So, could we think of particles as baked bread or a cake? You’ve got all these ingredients—fields—interacting, and the result is the “baked” product, the particle that emerges. Is that one way to frame it? The idea is that the particle is like the baked bread, and the fields are like the ingredients and the recipe—the interactions among them create the final form. The particle emerges as a result of the interactions within those fields.
Rick Rosner: All right, I didn’t get deep enough into quantum mechanics to see how it all works mathematically, but under quantum field theory—and in the universe at large—everything that exists and the way it exists is part of a grand interaction with everything else. The only reason we can say a proton is a proton, in a given place with a certain momentum and velocity, is because of its interactions with other particles and fields in the universe.
Not literally every particle, of course, but its state depends on a finite set of significant interactions. Because of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle—arising from non-commuting observables— the properties of the particle, like its position and momentum, are always a little uncertain. Everything about a particle is, at some level, slightly undefined.
But only slightly—so slightly that, because the universe contains an unfathomable number of particles and an immense history of interactions, most things are, for all practical purposes, well-defined. But it’s defined contextually. What you were saying about the bread fits: particles have no independent existence. They only exist and take on meaning as part of the entire “baked” history of the universe. Some researchers in mathematical physics have explored the idea that physical systems or spacetime can exhibit topological “knottedness.” Every interaction between particles that leaves a record could be thought of as a knot in spacetime.
Knots are special topological entities—structures that can’t be reduced to a simple line because of their self-interference. One can construct speculative models in which every particle interaction—the scattering, the exchange—creates a knot, and the entire universe becomes a 13.8-billion-year braid of those knots.
Mathematically, someone could probably make that model work. Would it yield new physics? Hard to say. But the idea captures something true: everything in the universe is entangled through about 13.8 billion years of “baking”—of particle exchanges, interactions, and evolution.
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): 2025/10/31
In this dialogue, Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner explore the perceptual boundaries of human experience—the limits of what we can truly sense in time and space. Rosner explains that our temporal resolution hovers around a tenth of a second, the scale of reflexes and thought formation, while spatial awareness reaches down to roughly 50 microns, the threshold of the naked eye. They discuss how linguistic processing, births, and deaths occur within similar temporal slices, linking consciousness to the continuous flow of global life. The conversation ultimately frames thought as holographic—relational, dynamic, and resistant to discrete measurement.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: I’ve got another question. For the scale of space we live in, and for the time perception we have—from the moment a photon hits the retina, travels up, is processed, and becomes consciously registered—what is the smallest magnitude of space or time we can legitimately perceive? Where do the gaps begin?
For instance, take the classic example: you draw a sequence of walking images on a Post-it notepad and flip through them. It tricks the brain into perceiving motion. The same principle applies to film. There are gaps there. So what’s the smallest time perception we have? And what’s the smallest spatial perception?
Rick Rosner: You’re talking about our brains interacting with the world. You’re not talking about the smallest possible units.
Jacobsen: Right. I’m not talking about the Planck length or fundamental limits of physics. I’m talking about perceptual limits—the relationship between a smaller subjective system with finite sensory capacity and the larger objective world.
Rosner: I can speak to that. For most people who aren’t highly trained at detecting fine differences, the just-noticeable difference—or Weber fraction—depends on the sense. For lifted weight, it’s about 2 percent; for brightness, around 8 percent; for loudness, roughly 10 percent.
If you give someone two bags of flour and one is about 2 percent heavier, many people will notice. At 5 percent, with only one quick lift, more will notice, but performance still depends on context and experience.
So it might be about a one-percent difference in a lot of cases. When you’re talking about minimum perceptible duration—say, if you showed people flashing lights where one stayed on for half a second and another stayed on for 0.55 seconds, about ten percent longer—people would likely notice that. But when the flashes differ between 0.2 seconds and 0.22 seconds, the failure rate goes up.
If one light stays on for a tenth of a second and another for a ninth, can people still tell? I don’t know. But time perception generally operates within fractions of a second unless people are trained. With training, accuracy improves.
When I was booked on Jeopardy!, I had a year to train because the season ended and they hadn’t brought me on yet. There was a car wash in Santa Monica that had a game: you’d put a dime in, and it would drop the dime at random intervals. If you caught the dime within about a tenth of a second, you got your dime back. If your reaction was slower than that, they kept it. I spent a lot of dimes trying to make my reactions fast for the Jeopardy! buzzer. That game taught me that reflexes operate on roughly a tenth-of-a-second scale.
Then there are thoughts. We’ve talked about this—how long it takes for a thought to form in your brain. The timescale is similar. If you put your hand on a hot stove, the signal has to travel to your brain and then back down your arm before you pull away. I don’t think we have reflexes that completely bypass the brain—like something at the elbow saying, “I’ll pull back without waiting for headquarters.” That doesn’t happen.
A lot of brain activity occurs on the scale of a third to a tenth of a second. But in a car wreck, when everything feels like it’s slowing down, perception sharpens. You can tell the order of events—the first contact with the other car, the windshield cracking, the airbag deploying, something flying off the other vehicle—even if those events are separated by only a few hundredths of a second.
So in crisis situations, maybe the minimum discernible time difference is around a fiftieth of a second. We know from film and television that we don’t perceive flicker when images are shown at 24 or 30 frames per second, which corresponds to refresh intervals of about 1/24 to 1/30 of a second. Instead of seeing discrete stills, we see smooth motion.
When I was a kid, I think there were some cartoons so cheaply made they ran at only 12 frames per second. I might be wrong—I haven’t checked—but at 12 fps, you could definitely tell. The motion looked choppy, like something wasn’t quite right. So that’s roughly the perceptual scale of time for humans.
Scale of space—so, I work with tiny things: little pieces of glass in micromosaics. I also, well, pick at myself. You know those pore strips people put on their noses? You leave them for a couple of hours, then peel them off, and they pull out the solidified oil from your pores—it looks like a gross little porcupine.
I do that manually. If I don’t have my contacts in, I can see really close up, and I’ll just start squeezing those little things out of my pores. They’re usually no more than a millimeter long, maybe about 0.4 millimeters across, and you can definitely feel them when you roll them between your fingers. You can feel even smaller stuff—probably down to a fifth of a millimeter, maybe even a tenth. You can feel it as it rolls along the ridges of your fingerprints. So you can feel textures down to about 100 microns.
And when you get a hair in your mouth or on your tongue, you can feel it instantly—that’s on the same order of magnitude. You can probably see, with the naked eye, objects down to about 50 microns, roughly a twentieth of a millimeter, maybe slightly less. So, that’s the spatial scale of perception. Have we talked enough about this, or should we move on?
Jacobsen: Let’s build on it. I looked up how many people die per day. It’s about 169,400 deaths per day worldwide.
Rosner: Wait, that tracks roughly. You should lose about one person in a hundred over a year. With eight billion people, that’s around 80 million deaths annually, which divided by 365 gives about 220,000 deaths per day. So 170,000-something is in the right range.
Jacobsen: So, the number of seconds before the first death of the day isn’t even a full second—it’s about half a second.
Rosner: Because there are 86,400 seconds in a day, right?
Jacobsen: Yes. So by the time you get to the first full second of the day, two people have already died somewhere in the world.
Now, when reading a word, the visual cortex detects letter shapes—like the dark lines of an “O”—in roughly 0 to 100 milliseconds. It decodes those shapes into known letter patterns between 100 and 250 milliseconds. Then lexical access—recognizing the word itself—occurs between 250 and 400 milliseconds. Finally, semantic integration, or understanding the word’s meaning in context, happens between 400 and 600 milliseconds. So, for a single word, comprehension takes about half a second.
Rosner: But fluent readers move their eyes ahead before their brains have completely processed the previous word. Reading is continuous; you don’t pause a half second per word. The words flow together at a steady clip.
Jacobsen: And on the other side of that time scale, globally, there’s a birth roughly every 0.4 seconds. So, if someone starts reading at midnight, by the time they’ve finished two individual words—not a full sentence, not Ulysses—two to three people will have been born, and two people will have died, and a second will have passed.
Rosner: I just think that’s pretty remarkable. But it depends on the words. If they’re familiar, recognition is instantaneous. If people see “Coca-Cola,” it’s immediate. If they see “fuck you,” it’s immediate.
Jacobsen: So, in terms of the 0 to 250 millisecond range—the visual cortex decoding stage—there’s nothing unusual there. But for lexical access, it’s likely on the lower end, and semantic integration probably happens closer to 400 milliseconds rather than the upper bound of 600 milliseconds. Fair?
Rosner: Yep.
Jacobsen: All right. So that’s the timeline for linguistic thought. I was just trying to put it into perspective—how many people are born and die every day. It’s staggering. What does that timeline of lexical access and semantic integration tell us about our style of thought in relation to the world? We were just talking about small time intervals and fine sensory registration.
Rosner: We’ve talked about this before. Language—putting names on things—is an enormous leap in efficiency. I can’t explain it perfectly, but it’s so much faster.
When you think in words, you’re not decoding written symbols; the words arrive already formed in your mind. I don’t see every word I say appear before my eyes as I speak. The only exceptions are visual associations: when I say “Coca-Cola,” I picture the logo; when I say “fuck you,” I see the phrase. But generally, the sentences flow without visual imagery.
Words let you pack an incredible number of ideas into your head. You’ve met my dogs, right? At least one of them is kind of an idiot.
Jacobsen: I’d say I met both bodies of dogs, and I met single dog, but neither of them met me—if you know what I mean.
Rosner: What you’re saying, philosophically, is that dogs aren’t exactly intellectuals.
Jacobsen: It’s like that Republican joke about Biden—that he doesn’t know what’s going on in his own head because he doesn’t even know he’s there.
Rosner: But seriously, some dogs are smarter. Border collies understand quite a lot. Coyotes too—they’re probably more attuned to their world than house pets are. If a coyote wandered into your house, it would be completely confused, but in its own environment, it behaves with far greater sophistication than a domestic dog.
Still, animal understanding is limited. Part of that’s brain size—a dog’s brain is about the size of a lemon compared to ours. But the bigger factor is language. Language compresses thought. You can store vastly more understanding if you have a coding system that tags complex concepts with short words. Instead of reconstructing an idea every time, you shorthand it.
That’s a massive step forward in efficiency. If linguistic thought weren’t such a powerful evolutionary advantage, we never would have evolved brains capable of it.
But brains evolve a lot. They’ve gotten bigger and more complex across evolutionary history. Being able to think better clearly confers a reproductive advantage—though not in every case. Some organisms, like mollusks, start out with functional nervous systems. When they’re larvae, they can think and move around. But once they attach to a surface and become something like a barnacle, they lose most of that neural machinery. They don’t need it anymore.
For most animals, though, the ability to think is a big deal. And similarly, having words for things—that is, symbolic thought—offers a huge advantage. Anything else?
Jacobsen: I don’t know. I mean, we don’t really know the minimal unit of information for human thought. We understand some of the basic components of brain activity—nerve impulses, neurotransmitters, neuromodulators, neurohormones—and we know how they integrate to produce complex effects.
We also know that the brain is a massively interconnected network. There are glial cells—probably ten times more than neurons—and around 86 billion neurons in the average human brain. Some glial cells act as cleanup crews, but others participate in information processing.
Neurons communicate through summation, meaning they fire based on statistical combinations of incoming signals. So brain activity isn’t binary in the way computers are. It’s probabilistic, dynamic, and context-dependent.
Rosner: So when we talk about a “minimum unit of thought,” it’s not as clear-cut as in computing. A bit—zero or one—is the smallest unit of digital information. But in the brain, information doesn’t work like that.
It’s more like those puzzles in People magazine, where they show two nearly identical pictures and ask you to spot the eight differences. That’s closer to the idea of minimal change in consciousness: what’s the smallest alteration in your mental landscape that you would actually register as different?
But even that is messy. Thought is not discrete; every element of a thought is defined by its relationships to every other element. You can’t isolate one unit cleanly. Consciousness is a network, not a sequence of bits.
Unlike a computer, where a circuit is either in a one state or a zero state, everything in your mind exists only through its relationships with everything else in your mind. It’s much more holographic. That means it isn’t easily defined by discrete units of information.
On the other hand, there should be a quantifiable amount of information in a single thought. When your brain is fully conscious—when you’re looking around, perceiving, remembering, processing—your mind at full capacity has a measurable information bandwidth from moment to moment.
People have tried to estimate that, to calculate the amount of information in a moment of consciousness, which you could loosely call a “thought.” If you can say, “There’s this much information in that moment,” then you’ve effectively assigned a number of informational units to thought.
So, it’s theoretically possible to measure, though prone to error. Much of what we think we’re thinking in a moment is tacit understanding—unspoken, automatic comprehension. Does that mean we can act as if we’ve had a super-complex thought when, in reality, much of it is implicit?
If tacit or implicit information underlies conscious thought, does it occupy fewer informational “units” than explicit knowledge? Or is that a false distinction—that everything we know is tacit and implicate, and nothing truly explicit? I don’t know. Those are some of the problems in trying to quantify thought. Is that reasonable?
Jacobsen: I think so. I could spin that question endlessly, but let’s leave it there for 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): Vocal.Media
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/30
Pi recurs because circular and spherical geometry minimize surface area and energy: surface tension rounds droplets; for fixed area a circle has the shortest boundary; in 3D a sphere resists stress and encloses volume efficiently. Fibonacci patterns arise from local growth rules near the golden angle (~137.5°), packing leaves and seeds without overlap. Those rules produce spiral counts that match consecutive Fibonacci numbers. Iterative branching and logarithmic spirals extend the effect across pinecones, sunflowers, shells, and more. Beneath both patterns is information shaped by constraints: simple optimization rules yield stable forms nature reuses, from eyeballs to orbits to seed heads.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Here’s a question: why does nature produce things like pi and Fibonacci? We see them in living organisms and ordered structures. Why do those patterns keep showing up?
Rick Rosner: Pi shows up in nature because many physical and geometric relationships involve circles and periodicity. For example, liquid droplets tend to become spherical because, for a given volume, a sphere has the minimum surface area; surface tension then favors that shape. In two dimensions, a circle has the maximum area for a given perimeter (equivalently, the minimum perimeter for a given area), which is why circular boundaries often arise. Fibonacci patterns often appear in plants (like spirals in sunflowers or pinecones) because new growth placed near the “golden angle” of about 137.5° distributes seeds or leaves efficiently, leading to spiral counts that are typically consecutive Fibonacci numbers.
Of course there are forces. Gravity and air resistance turn what would be a sphere in zero gravity into a drop shape. Once that drop contacts a surface, it forms a spherical cap set by surface tension, gravity, and the surface’s wettability (contact angle), rather than pulling itself into a free sphere.
It happens because when everything is pulling on everything else, the surface area is where you have less material pulling, since it’s the outer boundary. The particles on the surface don’t have neighbors on all sides, so everything “wants” to be pulled by as much surrounding material as possible, which minimizes the surface area. The minimum surface area configuration in two dimensions is a circle; in three dimensions—like a planet or a star—it’s a sphere.
A circle has a fixed ratio of its circumference to its diameter, which is where π (pi) arises. For spheres, π appears in surface area (4πr²) and volume ((4/3)πr³). There are many other ways that pi appears in nature.
Fibonacci patterns, on the other hand, appear through iterative branching. The golden ratio—basically the Fibonacci constant—can be derived from the Fibonacci sequence: 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, where each number is the sum of the two preceding ones. Continuing, you get 34, 55, 89, and so on. As the sequence progresses, the ratio between consecutive numbers approaches the golden ratio, approximately 1.618. The formula for the golden ratio (φ) is (1 + √5)/2, which equals about 1.618.
Fibonacci patterns show up in nature through iterations—start with one branch on a tree, then that branch produces another, and each new branch produces more. It’s not exact doubling but rather a growth pattern governed by addition of previous states, like in the sequence itself.
This pattern appears in many natural forms. For example, sunflowers have seed arrangements that follow Fibonacci spirals, distributing seeds efficiently without overlap. The same kind of phyllotaxis—the arrangement of leaves, seeds, or petals—appears in pinecones, pineapples, and many other plants.
Jacobsen: So why do those patterns appear in nature?
Rosner: The simplest processes are also the most common—they’re the most likely to happen. You see circular structures in nature because they represent a minimum surface area. They’re also strong. For instance, eggs aren’t perfectly spherical—they’re mostly spherical but pointy enough to pass through a chicken’s cloaca. In cross-section, they’re circular, and for having just a thin shell of calcium, they take a lot of force to break.
A sphere is the most efficient shape for protection. Your skull, for example, isn’t perfectly spherical, but it’s close enough to minimize the amount of bone needed to protect your brain. You don’t want a bunch of pointy protrusions unless you’re an animal that uses them for fighting. Humans don’t fight that way—though some people might headbutt others—but we don’t have antlers. The skull’s rounded shape provides the least investment in bone while maximizing protection.
A sphere is also resistant to crushing. You can knock a corner off a cube or a tetrahedron, but a sphere has no corners to break. If you look up why spheres are so common in nature, you’ll find many more reasons.
Think of a pit bull chained in a yard. If it runs in circles at maximum distance, it’ll wear a circular path in the dirt. Wheels are circular because you want a smooth ride, not constant jolting. Your eyeballs are roughly spherical because that’s the most efficient shape to contain the vitreous humor, and they move easily in their bony sockets.
The same principle applies to your shoulders and pelvis—if you want a full range of motion, you need a spherical joint in a spherical socket. There are countless reasons spheres show up in nature—they’re simply the most efficient, stable, and versatile shape for both structure and function.
We’re less well-versed in what information actually is and what it requires. I’ve been saying for a few months now that information requires a context. Usually, the context is so obvious that we overlook it—we’ve failed to develop a theory of information in context, of how it takes an entire universe to have information.
There’s information that exists for the universe itself. There’s information tied to how things work at the quantum level, down to the smallest scales. But many of those quantum interactions don’t rise to the level of “information” for the universe—they’re information-like because they follow the basic principles of existence.
Then there’s information as it exists for us—conscious beings living on a planet in this universe. We haven’t yet developed, or even felt the need to develop, a comprehensive theory of how information functions within existence. We’re happy to use it moment to moment. We like sports scores. We like knowing when it’s safe to cross the street. We like having some idea of whether the person we just hit on thinks we’re creepy.
But when it comes to a theoretical understanding of how information becomes information, we’re not great. Yet it’s essential—it’s as crucial to existence as tires are to a car.
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): 2025/10/25
Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner probe whether math is built-in or invented, and how intuition can automate physics. Rosner casts math as conceptual shorthand that scaffolds understanding—like words such as “schadenfreude”—with estimation and repetition training intuition. They argue the universe does not “calculate”; laws emerge from interacting fields, while math mirrors structure within finite information, not Platonic perfection. Subjectivity arises as a “statistically disambiguated” layer—distinct yet embedded—analogous to centrifuged strata. Skills span a continuum from embodied physics (a basketball arc) to formal tensors, converging as fluency. Information demands context; existence is a web of relations, and models refine correspondence.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: In theory, if something is living in the universe and there’s a union between how the world works and how their mind works—if they’re able to form a mental map of it—then theoretically there should be no limit to how much of that correspondence could be automated. The perception of the mechanics of the world could become intuitive for an organism.
Rick Rosner: That makes sense. Our perception of three-dimensional space, for example, is intuitive. We’ve lived in it and moved through it long enough that we understand perspective instinctively. We don’t need the equations of perspective or formal explanations—we move through space naturally. So you’re saying we could eventually develop enough cognitive “modules” to interpret the universe intuitively, built from advanced theoretical understanding. We wouldn’t need math—it would just exist in our minds as a model of the world.
Jacobsen: What’s intuitive for us isn’t what’s intuitive for an ant. There’s a scaling difference—you can get much functionality at different cognitive levels. And who says we’re the limit?
Rosner: Within practical limits, of course, you can’t build—at least not yet or in the foreseeable future—a brain the size of a planet. But as technology evolves, there’s no reason to think we couldn’t surpass even that someday.
Jacobsen: So your question is whether math itself is a kind of construct?
Rosner: Right. Is math even math? Math is really a set of languages that act as both numerical and conceptual shorthand. You plug values into equations, and you get results—numbers or symbols—that mean something. They inform your understanding. They help you build the kind of intuitive grasp you were describing earlier. Math, to some extent, is just a way of propping up understanding.
You see a flock of birds, and if you’re Kim Peek, you might instantly say there are 85 of them swirling in the sky. I can do it for maybe 20 birds on a streetlight. That kind of estimation, after repeated exposure, builds intuition. Most people don’t go around counting flocks of birds, but if you do, eventually you develop an intuitive sense of quantity—it’s tied to having done some counting at some point. So math and intuition, or innate understanding, reinforce each other.
It’s a form of shorthand—the exact way words are shorthand. Not the same way, but close. We can think without words; animals feel without words. But it’s much more cumbersome because they lack that linguistic shorthand. Once you name something, it exists as a manipulable concept—you can move it around in your mind as a symbol instead of as a long, descriptive thought.
Take the word schadenfreude: happiness at another’s misfortune. Once you have that word, you can analyze or recognize that feeling much faster—it becomes a tool of cognition. Especially in Hollywood, it’s a useful one.
I’ve got a book on my stairs called How to Teach Physics to Your Dog. The author explains physics for laypeople by imagining his dog is very smart—able to understand words but not math. He tries to explain physics in language simple enough for a bright dog to follow. Others have had similar ideas: translating the brutal, equation-filled side of physics—blackboards full of symbols, fifty-page technical papers—into plain language descriptions of what those equations describe.
Which brings me back to another question for you: Does the universe know how to do math? And if the universe were some being—if the information within it were a model of both its external environment and its internal “memories,” the way we carry models in our own minds—then obviously something as vast as the universe would seem to have some kind of mathematical understanding. But does that mean there’s an actual mathematical understanding built into the universe’s physical operation?
I’d say no. The universe doesn’t calculate. It’s a collection of forces and fields that behave according to the principles of existence, from which the laws of physics emerge. The universe isn’t sitting around computing outcomes; things happen because of the interactions and forces acting on them.
Jacobsen: So the question becomes whether math is in our heads, a tool we’ve invented, or something woven into the universe itself. Probably all three. It’s an extension of what we were talking about earlier—intuition. Intuition is basically a kind of calibrated automation of experience and thought. Over time, the mind tunes itself so that some responses—like catching a ball, walking, or sensing someone’s mood—become instantaneous. Those are intuitions working at high speed.
If you stretched that time scale—say, slowed down thinking by a factor of a hundred or a thousand—the distinction between conscious thought and intuition would blur. At that level, thought and intuition are probably the same process, just operating at different speeds. So, when we talk about correspondence—the mind matching its internal calculations to the external world—it’s that correspondence that gives rise to truth. The math we do with tools mirrors the structure of the world, but the world’s “math” isn’t infinite.
Rosner: People often think of math as existing in some perfect Platonic realm—outside of reality, immutable and pure. But you can also see math as something emergent, a convergent conspiracy of forces working together to define quantities. Counting numbers, for instance, feel infinitely precise—each whole number is followed by an infinite string of zeros past the decimal point. That infinite precision is an assumption we make; it’s a human construction.
In a universe with infinite information, such precision might exist. But our universe is finite, so everything in it is incompletely defined—there’s only so much information to go around. We declare numbers to be infinitely precise because our mathematical rules allow us to do so. And that works beautifully as long as we stay in the realm of abstraction. But once you translate numbers into the physical world, you have to deal with fuzziness again—uncertainty, approximation, and the limits of finite information.
The way we define things in the real world and in mathematics might actually follow similar processes. The difference is that in math, we’re allowed to pretend we have an infinite amount of information available to define things precisely. In the real world, we don’t. I don’t know how that helps anything, but there you are.
Jacobsen: The distinction between math as pre-thought and math as thought is probably artificial. Math in the world is something the world does. If you take that naturalistic view and see the laws of nature or physics as mathematical, then we ourselves could be thought of as mathematical objects in motion—dynamic mathematical processes.
The flip side of that, though, is that the universe may not be aware. I know you and I differ on that—especially with the IC idea. You’ve got an object universe with no inherent awareness, but on this planet, there’s a sort of froth where consciousness emerges—subjectivities built from recursive information processing. Through enough layers of recursion, integration, and goal-directed behaviour, you get what we call a “self.”
Rosner: I don’t think the universe itself is conscious, but I do believe the information within it behaves as if it were processed by something conscious. That information could pertain to an information-processing entity that exists in a larger, more fundamental world—an “armature world,” a level of hardware that allows our universe of matter, space, and time to exist, much as our brains enable our minds to exist.
Jacobsen: All universes in the IC model are finite—arbitrarily large, but still finite in stability. So minds, by derivation, are also finite. For perception to occur and for us to form accurate conceptions of the world, there must be a correspondence between the larger finite structure and the internal processing of that subjectivity. But given the enormous scale difference, the internal models of these subjectivities rarely achieve perfect fidelity with any particular aspect of the larger universe.
Rosner: So when I say that information processing in the universe is “subjective,” I mean that subjectivity belongs to the entity doing the processing. To us, that manifests as space, time, and matter—what we call objective reality. We evolved to model that objective reality as accurately as possible to survive moment to moment. But that modelling itself is subjective because it happens within each individual, from their perspective, and pertains uniquely to them.
So then we can argue about what “subjective” even means. Our brains strive to model the world objectively—without bias—but since each brain’s perspective is unique, the modelling is still subjective. You could call it objective because it tries to be accurate, or subjective. After all, it’s always filtered through individual cognition. Once we make judgments about what’s going on, those judgments are inherently subjective.
Jacobsen: So when you talk about subjectivity and objectivity, you have to define your terms very carefully. Once you do, it’s actually quite straightforward. There’s nothing mystical about it. I’d say that subjectivity in an objective universe is statistically disambiguated—it emerges as a probabilistic byproduct of nature.
Rosner: Say that again without the word “disambiguated.” What do you mean?
Jacobsen: You know those spinners used in labs—centrifuges? They separate substances by weight or density, forming layers as they spin. I think the universe is like that, metaphorically speaking. Subjectivity works the same way: never entirely separate, still sticky, because we’re part of nature. We come out of it, but our sense of self is distinct enough to exist as its own layer in the mix. In that sense, our subjectivity is pretty well defined—each brain models reality for one person.
“Pretty well” is the key phrase. Not absolutely. That’s what I meant earlier by “statistically disambiguated.” Subjectivity is distinct enough to function independently but still arises from the same integrated substrate.
Rosner: So “statistically disambiguated” means what, exactly?
Jacobsen: It’s like saying that a brain’s information—this vast, entangled mass of data—produces a distinct entity the way a macro-object like an apple emerges from particles. An apple is clearly an apple because, statistically, it’s separated from everything else in the universe. It’s coherent.
So applying that same principle to consciousness—scaling it up from classical physics. In classical physics, objects are defined by their scale and their separability. The same logic can apply to less tangible things, such as the sense of self. Consciousness and selfhood emerge as bounded systems from the larger “object universe.”
That ability to predict, perceive, and integrate with the universe—that’s the union ancient traditions talk about. People joke about yoga as stretching, but yoga literally means “union.” If you had no union with the universe, you wouldn’t perceive anything at all. The stickiness —the inseparable connection —defines experience. Evolution gives each species a specific way of interfacing with the world. Your nervous system, your body, your history—all of that encodes the range and type of experience you can have. As systems evolve or degrade, those parameters shift.
Rosner: As our information-processing abilities expand, our understanding of the universe should grow more inclusive. Bugs, for instance, miss almost everything. An aphid can’t conceive that it’s orbiting a star in one galaxy among hundreds of billions. But as our brains evolve—or as we augment them with technology—we’d hope our comprehension becomes more complete.
Jacobsen: Here’s a trick question to sharpen the point: what’s the real difference between catching a ball—an intuitive act—and doing matrix-based math? Time and effort. One is learned subconsciously through repetition; the other requires conscious training to restructure how the mind processes information. But conceptually, both are learning processes that map onto a multidimensional space of cognition—how we acquire and express knowledge.
Shooting a three-point shot and mastering the tensor equations of general relativity seem worlds apart, but both can be plotted in the same cognitive space. The axes represent factors such as time investment, abstraction, sensory feedback, or error correction. Some skills feel more intuitive—like the basketball shot—but both involve the brain learning to model and predict outcomes within structured systems.
So even physical intuition—like a basketball player’s sense of trajectory—could be seen as a kind of embodied physics.
Rosner: My brother’s best friend in junior high was one of the two best basketball players at their school. His dad was a physics professor, and he used to try to mathematicize basketball—to translate the arcs, velocities, and rotations into formal equations.
So my brother’s friend’s dad—the physics professor—once tried to mathematicize basketball. Ignoring air resistance, he explained that if you release the ball with the same force at different angles, the most significant horizontal distance comes from a 45-degree angle. That’s the classic projectile-motion result. In theory, that should help: less force means better accuracy, so a 45-degree release seems ideal.
But in practice, the ball’s entry angle into the hoop matters. At 45 degrees, it approaches the rim at a shallow trajectory, making the rim appear narrower. You probably want a slightly steeper arc—around 51 or 52 degrees—to make the target “larger” from the ball’s perspective. He did all that math, and it was probably less helpful than just shooting thousands of baskets.
People learn athletic skills by doing. You can theorize about angles all day, but experience tunes intuition better than equations. Still, at the elite level—say, Olympic athletes—analysis becomes useful. That’s when you go to Colorado Springs, put motion-capture dots on your body, and let the biomechanics lab break down your movement. They’ll map muscle activation sequences, timing, and energy transfer. It’s science applied to intuition.
Everything exists along a spectrum of learning. Some skills feel intuitive—others demand structured analysis. Take flying a plane: I’ve tried flight simulators at Dave & Buster’s, and even there, it’s hard as hell. You think it’s intuitive—tilt the rudder, bank the wings—but in reality, it’s a complex coordination of forces and control surfaces. That’s why pilots spend hours in classrooms and simulators.
Every discipline has its own learning geometry. In physics, for instance, problem sets in electromagnetism could take an hour apiece. That’s what I hated about physics. I never got to general relativity—those problem sets must be brutal—and only scratched the surface of quantum mechanics. Eventually, though, you reach fluency. The symbols stop being symbols and start behaving intuitively, the way musical notes do for a composer. For the truly brilliant, that intuition might exist from the start.
So learning styles are like different points in a cognitive space—each discipline sits somewhere between the intuitive and the analytical.
Jacobsen: Which leads to more profound questions. People like to ask, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” But that assumes “nothing” is the natural state. The IC answer flips it: Why wouldn’t there be something? Statistically, existence is far more probable than pure absence. The exact inversion applies to math. We keep asking: is math “out there,” in the universe; “in here,” in our heads; or just a tool we’ve built?
All three may be the wrong frame. Once we understand what information actually is, the puzzle changes. Subjectivity—the sense of self—probably arises from a symmetric relationship between what’s happening in the information processor and what’s happening in the external world it evolved to mirror. That symmetry—between internal representation and external structure—is where both math and consciousness meet.
Rosner: And the more immediate stuff—the kind of processing that doesn’t require complete conscious thought—it’s the same principle when I say information isn’t information without context. We haven’t fully developed an understanding of information because we take context for granted. For all the information in our heads, we are the context. We provide the framework.
There are information systems beyond us—like the universe itself, which quantum mechanics implies is an information system. But we don’t yet know what that information is, how it functions, or what it’s relevant to. Our understanding is incomplete until we grasp the context of information, just as our grasp of existence is incomplete without understanding the context of everything.
The naive idea of “stuff” is that things exist by virtue of being things. But the deeper we look, the more we see that existence itself is a kind of cosmic conspiracy—a web of interrelations among vast numbers of processes across immense time scales, all reinforcing one another’s consistency. You can’t remove the rest of the universe and still have an apple. The apple vanishes. Everything depends on everything else.
Our comprehension of context and interrelatedness remains crude. Even our understanding of entropy is parochial—it’s local. We think the universe has increasing entropy because closed systems inevitably do. But on the universal scale, we have no clear picture of how information flows over cosmic time, or even what counts as information. Until we understand that, all our other inquiries will remain fragmentary.
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): 2025/10/25
Rick Rosner riffs on whether a civilization could grasp physics without mathematics, imagining whale societies that count heads but lack equations. He argues math is essential for precise theories, yet many core ideas—projectiles, orbits, relativity—begin as pictures and principles before formalization. Examples include Einstein’s thought experiments refined with tensor calculus, Big Bang nucleosynthesis by Alpher, Bethe, and Gamow, and Newton’s insight that orbits are continuous free-fall obeying an inverse-square law. Scott Douglas Jacobsen notes everyday intuition—throwing a ball, braking for a light—mirrors calculus. Rosner concludes: you can teach physics conceptually without equations, but doing physics ultimately requires mathematics. Precision demands symbolic tools.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Could we understand the universe if we did not have any math whatsoever?
Rick Rosner: That reminds me of a scenario. What if there were no people—how would whales understand the universe? Imagine a planet with no land, only aquatic creatures. Would they ever be able to understand the universe, given that their view of the heavens is obscured? They do not have hands. Would aquatic creatures ever develop hands, or is that a purely terrestrial thing? Your question is like asking whether a civilization could arise with minimal math. That is conceivable. A primarily aquatic civilization might only need counting numbers—for instance, to keep track of group members: there are twenty-five of us, but I count twenty-four. Who is missing? Oh, Jerry. Where did Jerry go?
Math is convenient for describing physical concepts. You can tell things in words, but it is much harder to be precise. In the absence of wind resistance, a projectile follows a parabolic path up and back down to Earth. You could describe a parabola in words, but it is much easier to use an equation like y = –x². Once you have math, you can understand the concepts of the universe. You can translate those concepts into words. There is an entire industry of physics for laypeople, where highly trained physicists make the universe and modern physics comprehensible without math. Stephen Hawking was told by his publisher, while writing A Brief History of Time, that every equation in the book would cut sales in half.
So he included only one—E = mc². It was already so well known that it did not scare readers, even if they did not understand what it meant. You need math. I do not think you can develop physical understanding without it. But can you convey an understanding of the universe without equations? Yes, I think you can. You can teach smart people how physics works without math. The most famous example in quantum mechanics, besides Schrödinger’s cat—which most people reference without understanding its full implications—is the double-slit experiment.
You said, “Can you do physics without math?” That depends on what kind. You can have equations without numbers, like F = ma. I’ll give you three examples. Einstein was a visual thinker. Special relativity began when he imagined “chasing a light beam,” asking what electromagnetic fields would look like if you moved at the speed of light. For general relativity, his key insight was the equivalence principle—freely falling frames feel weightless—which he explored through thought experiments. He was good at math, but didn’t initially have the right tools. Marcel Grossmann, a mathematician friend, helped him adopt tensor calculus and differential geometry (not “matrices”) to rigorously express the theory. To a large extent, Einstein’s physics began with pictures and principles and only later took an entirely mathematical form. So visual reasoning can lead to profound insight before the equations are formalized.
Take Gamow. He’s often linked to early Big Bang cosmology, but the core ideas predate him. Alexander Friedmann, in 1922, found non-static solutions to Einstein’s equations. Georges Lemaître, in 1927, proposed an expanding universe and the “primeval atom.” Edwin Hubble, in 1929, provided observational evidence of the expansion of the universe. Gamow’s significant contribution, with his student Ralph Alpher and his work with Robert Herman, was Big Bang nucleosynthesis in the late 1940s: they calculated that a hot, dense early universe would produce mostly hydrogen and about a quarter of it helium by mass, and they predicted a residual cosmic microwave background. The famous 1948 “αβγ” paper listed Alpher, Bethe, and Gamow; Hans Bethe’s inclusion was partly a pun on the Greek letters. Bethe himself is best known for explaining how stars generate energy and elements through stellar nucleosynthesis.
So Gamow wasn’t first, but he refined and extended earlier insights. Then there’s Newton. With universal gravitation, he was one of the greatest mathematicians of all time—he co-invented calculus—but he also had extraordinary visual intuition. He realized that an orbit is continuous free-fall: an object falls toward Earth while having enough sideways, or tangential, speed that it perpetually “misses” the surface. Mathematically, his inverse-square law F=GMmr2F=Gr2Mm and the orbital relation for a circular orbit v=GMrv=rGM capture this: gravity provides the inward acceleration v2/rv2/r, while the orbital speed remains constant in a stable path.
Velocity increasing at a constant rate—like ten meters per second added every second—and that comes from Newton’s laws of motion: an object in motion stays in motion unless acted upon by an outside force. So he’s thinking, what would that look like? You’ve got an object in motion being pulled toward Earth. It already has some velocity, and gravity keeps adding more at a constant rate. That kind of reasoning is best expressed through math, but you can still conceive of it without doing the math explicitly. So intuition first, formalism later.
Also, gravitational force decreases inversely with the square of the distance from the gravitating body. That’s identical to the inverse-square law of illumination: the intensity of light decreases as the square of your distance from the source. You can think about that conceptually. If light radiates outward in all directions, then at any given radius, that light is spread over the surface of a sphere. The surface area of the sphere increases by the square of the radius. Since the total light remains the same, its intensity per unit area decreases with the square of the distance from the source. You can picture that without math—it’s a spatial intuition.
Jacobsen: So, visualization plays a significant role even in something as mathematical as physics. Math facilitates physics; it lets you expand your theories and rigorously test them. You do need math to formalize physics, but you can still grasp a lot conceptually. When I asked whether you could do physics without math, you were already doing it. When you throw a ball or play catch, you have an intuitive grasp of trajectories, velocity, and timing. So we all carry a kind of informal physics toolkit in our heads.
Rosner: Definitely. Anyone who drives understands aspects of calculus without realizing it. When you approach a stoplight, you brake gradually to come to a smooth stop—that’s an intuitive understanding of rates of change, or derivatives. You’re adjusting your acceleration continuously so you don’t collide or stop too soon. And when you think the light’s about to change, probability enters the picture. You might be approaching two cars at a light you’ve seen a thousand times, and you estimate whether the light will turn green before you reach them. You’re unconsciously running a probabilistic model—predicting timing, adjusting speed, minimizing wasted motion. People have an intuitive understanding of dynamics, and that’s a profoundly mathematical thing.
Many people who don’t know quantum mechanics still understand the double-slit experiment—where you can get a single photon to pass through two separate slits in a barrier and interfere with itself.
Many have heard of it, but only a much smaller fraction understands what it actually means. You could teach that without any math whatsoever, without any equations. You can teach people to understand physics conceptually without resorting to many equations. But you can’t do physics without, at some point, involving people who are good at turning those concepts into math.
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): 2025/10/23
Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner explore informational cosmology at black-hole boundaries and beyond. Rosner notes supermassive black holes are densest from the outside, yet interior density is tempered by curved spacetime and quantum “fuzziness.” Quantum gravity candidates, exclusion principles, and phase transitions may halt true singularities, yielding ultra-dense, evolving quantum states. Stars act as leaky correlational engines; galaxies emit immense photon webs, but the most durable records likely reside in gravitational filaments. Rosner sketches “hedgehog” collapse vectors around t0, speculates galaxies can dim and relight via cosmic-web inflow, and doubts nucleation around neutron stars. Dark-matter halos endure. Conclusions remain provisional—and productively skeptical.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: In informational cosmology—if we take a bubbly big-bang universe with regions forming and collapsing—you’ve got active regions and collapsed ones like black holes. What’s the densest possible agglomeration of collapsed matter that could theoretically approximate a black hole, but isn’t quite one?
Rick Rosner: From the outside, the densest objects would be the supermassive black holes at the centers of galaxies—some have billions of stellar masses. From an external perspective, those are the densest things in the universe.
Inside, though, they might not be as dense as we imagine, because the scale of space itself changes within that gravitational well. The curvature of spacetime dilates distances. From the outside, they’re almost as black as black can be—but internally, density and geometry behave differently.
Jacobsen: Do quantum effects at that limit—where you push matter so close together—change how we interpret these systems in an informational or cosmological framework?
Rosner: It depends which quantum effects you’re talking about. The key issue is that in combining quantum mechanics with general relativity, the forces involved—especially gravitational self-attraction—become stronger than any other force we know. Traditional relativity predicts a singularity, an infinity of density, but quantum mechanics might prevent that. Some models, like loop quantum gravity or string theory, suggest spacetime could resist true infinite collapse, replacing the singularity with a finite, ultra-dense quantum structure.
Matter does not exist in pinpoints—it exists with some quantum fuzziness. So even as you approach a singularity, you never truly reach one, because there’s always that fuzziness. You don’t hit infinity unless everything is compressed into a perfect mathematical point, which never happens.
Jacobsen: So that fuzziness is a kind of built-in safeguard against infinities?
Rosner: That’s one quantum correction to general relativity, which otherwise predicts mathematical infinities. And, as far as we know, there are no actual infinities in this or any universe. Before you even reach the singularity, you run into other quantum effects—things like the Pauli exclusion principle, which says you can’t have two particles with identical quantum states occupying the same space.
I’d have to reread the fine points of it, but it’s one of the strongest constraints in quantum mechanics. Basically, there are all sorts of physical “sticking points” that stop matter from collapsing smoothly into an infinite point.
As you add more energy—compressing matter like running the Big Bang in reverse—you reach energy levels so extreme that ordinary particles can’t exist under those conditions. At the Big Bang, for instance, in the first trillionths of a second, you had super high–energy particles like the Higgs boson because everything was compressed into a tiny volume with immense energy density. As the universe expanded, that energy dissipated, and those extreme particles disappeared, leaving behind the “normal” particles that obey familiar quantum rules.
When you’re building a singularity—or something close to it—you’re taking ordinary particles and crushing them together until they can’t exist side by side according to quantum mechanics. When that happens, the system shifts: you inject so much energy that those particles are replaced by higher-energy particles capable of existing under those conditions. You end up with a degenerate, smashed-down quantum soup. Add even more energy, and you get newer, higher-energy structures that aren’t bound by the same exclusion rules.
It becomes a hierarchy of phase transitions—each layer replacing the one before it.
Jacobsen: When you look at a star, a lot of photons get out, but some get trapped for potentially millions of years. The record of those photon directions and interactions gets scrambled long before the star explodes. But when the star finally does explode, all that matter and all those interactions that were in tight correlation get ejected. Quantum mechanically, are those ejected particles still entangled?
Rosner: At least according to information theory, everything that happens in the universe can be given an informational interpretation. So yes—in a sense, everything remains connected, though not in any way we could practically measure.
When a bunch of matter collapses into a dense wad, that has implications for the information embodied by that matter. This is a roundabout way of saying I don’t know exactly how any of this works—but yeah, when you take a stellar object and play with the gravitational curvature of the space around it, that curvature can allow some matter or radiation to escape into the larger universe. When that happens, the escaping material carries information from within the object. I don’t know the full rules governing that, but I’d assume it involves entanglement.
Entanglement is hard to produce in a lab, but in the universe as a whole, everything is effectively entangled—everything shares a history. I don’t know the detailed physics, but that shared history is part of it. When particles escape from a highly self-contained object, they carry a kind of record of that object’s state. So there’s an information release into the wider universe, which makes sense in a system that stores and, when conditions allow, retrieves information.
Jacobsen: Over a chapter of a star’s life cycle—say, a billion years—most of that process plays out gradually. A star’s matter and radiation remain in communication with the universe at large; it’s not self-contained the way a black hole is. The gravitational gradient in a star just isn’t strong enough to seal it off from the rest of spacetime.
Rosner: A star isn’t a black hole. It’s still embedded in the broader universe. It acts as a kind of correlational engine, not an isolated system. There’s a little self-containment due to fusion, but stars are terrible at maintaining a record of most of the interactions happening inside them.
Jacobsen: What about at the galactic level—say, ten to the eleventh stars in a single galaxy? That’s an immense photon web being emitted from all those stars over billions of years. I am thinking of it as a kind of long-term, galaxy-scale correlational photon network.
Rosner: I see what you mean—I’m not entirely convinced by that framing.
Jacobsen: But there’s definitely a lot of information encoded in the spatial and energetic map of the universe.
Rosner: The distribution of photons, matter, and gravitational fields across the cosmos forms an immense record—one that’s constantly being written and rewritten by every interaction that’s ever taken place.
The shaping and association of large-scale structures in the universe are done through gravitation, including the galactic filaments—the vast, web-like formations that connect clusters of galaxies. Those filaments are durable. If my model of the informational cosmos is right, they probably persist far longer than the apparent age of the universe itself.
I haven’t thought deeply about the gravitational relationships among all the stars within a single galaxy, though. I don’t think that structure is as durable as what you find in the cosmic filaments. For example, the spiral arms of a galaxy aren’t permanent structures—they’re density waves that sweep around the galactic disk. Over ten million years or so, they change form. It’s like “the wave” at a football stadium: the pattern moves, but the people stay put.
Over time, stellar collisions decline—both within galaxies and solar systems. The objects that are going to collide do so early on, and what remains settles into relatively stable orbits.
So is there usable information in that long-term stability? In a galaxy that’s twelve billion years old compared to one that’s only a few hundred million years old and still forming, is there more informational value in the older structure?
I don’t know. My instinct is that there’s not a great deal of new information in that stability.
Jacobsen: Nature is subtle, and your emphasis on durable structure—those immense galactic filaments—is probably where most of the long-term information resides. They’re the biggest identifiable structures in the universe, outside the universe itself, if such a thing could even be said to exist.
I’m probing different angles here. Maybe it’s not durability in volume, but durability in time—a sort of persistence through the immense photon web these galaxies emit over billions of years. That’s another kind of durability.
Rosner: Possibly. If my idea of the informational cosmos is right, galaxies can “run out of juice”—their star formation stops—and later they could light up again when the surrounding cosmic web sends enough energy or material back into them. I don’t know what’s truly durable about a galaxy in that context.
Jacobsen: What if some things are transitionally durable? Not permanent themselves, but stepping stones toward something that lasts longer—structures that serve as scaffolds for more durable cosmic phenomena.
Rosner: Maybe. I can imagine an old galaxy running out of energy, leaving behind collapsed remnants orbiting a supermassive black hole at its center. Occasionally, those remnants could still collide, losing orbital momentum due to gravitational friction. Even then, near that collapsed region—close to what we might call t₀, where everything’s extremely dense—time itself runs slower. Every galaxy carries its own intense gravitational vector, which tends to keep them from colliding with each other.
So the space around t₀ looks like a hedgehog, with the spines representing individual galaxies or clusters of galaxies—each with its own direction, its own gravitational collapse vector. It’s spiky that way. It’s not one uniform space but a collection of collapsed regions, separated by gravity—or by the lack of mutual gravitational influence. Everything’s got its own vector.
Within one of these collapse spikes, you’ve got a galaxy where time moves more slowly but isn’t completely frozen. There’s still a lot of collapsed material orbiting a supermassive black hole at the center. Then, eventually, that material lights up again. I assume that happens through some change in curvature that releases a lot of energy—probably mostly from the center, maybe also from other structures within the galaxy.
There must be ancient, collapsed matter orbiting far from the center that doesn’t get re-illuminated when a galaxy “relights.” I would think most of the release comes from the center. Does that process leave much of the galactic structure intact? And if it does, does that matter informationally? Are the objects that light up the old ones, or are they newly formed stars?
Maybe this whole model doesn’t work, because if you’ve got a galaxy full of burned-out remnants—neutron stars, brown dwarfs, collapsed material—and then it gets relit, there’s no evidence that each new star nucleates around a neutron star that pulls in new matter. That’s just not supported by observation.
What we do know is that galaxies have halos of dark matter—possibly regular, collapsed matter we can’t see—that explain why orbital speeds don’t drop off as expected with distance from the center. Maybe only the material far from the core survives both collapse and relighting. But I don’t know. All I’ve got are possibilities, and most of them sound dubious.
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): 2025/10/22
Hosted by Pangburn, the “Greatest Vaccine Debate in History” pits educators Dave Farina (“Professor Dave Explains”) and Dr. Dan Wilson (“Debunk the Funk”) against entrepreneur Steve Kirsch and critical-care physician Dr. Pierre Kory. Farina and Wilson emphasize methods over anecdotes, challenging claims about vaccines causing autism, aluminum adjuvant harm, and ivermectin efficacy. They note MMR never contained thimerosal, most childhood vaccines have been thimerosal-free since 2001, and COVID-19 vaccines, though waning, reduce infection and hospitalization. They also explain VAERS cannot establish causation. With clear definitions and study-by-study analysis, Farina and Wilson present the stronger case grounded in contemporary scientific evidence.
Dave Farina, known for the YouTube Channel “Professor Dave Explains,” is a professional science educator. Dr. Dan Wilson, known for the YouTube Channel “Debunk the Funk,” is a molecular biologist and science communicator.
Steve Kirsch is a Silicon Valley entrepreneur and inventor who is a prominent critic of the COVID-19 vaccine. Pierre Kory is an American critical care and pulmonary physician (ABIM revoked certifications) and president of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance. They participated in a public debate hosted by Pangburn titled “Greatest Vaccine Debate In History | Dave Farina & Dr. Dan Wilson vs Steve Kirsch & Dr. Pierre Kory.”
Dan and Dave are part of a growing and necessary educational ecosystem that pushes back against pseudoscience and figures who misinform or disinform people, potentially costing lives and health, not just the lives of vulnerable sub-demographics in America, but also those with international influence.
This reflects an adaptive evolution, in some threads, of New Atheism, Militant Atheism, and/or Firebrand Atheism, with a less aggressive, healthier, assertive approach and a more targeted subject-matter style. This comes out in the rhetorical angle of the debate.
The expletives are not the point; they are punctuation. Dave is the father of a child with autism. The false claim of anti-vaccination activists, e.g., “Vaccines cause autism,” impacts real lives and is not an abstraction to him.
Dan’s greater specialization, combined with Dave’s general-knowledge pushback and Dan’s expertise, made for a formidable combination in the debate. Saying they won would be an understatement. Dave and Dan were the stronger side in the debate with Pierre and Steve.
Primarily, because Dave and Dan targeted the prime form of reasoning presented by Steve and Pierre—anecdote and narrative—while emphasizing that the preponderance of high-quality evidence is what matters in science, not anecdote.
Dave repeatedly identifies this flaw in Pierre and Steve’s arguments, while Dave and Dan return to the key questions about precise definitions, evidence, and analysis of the studies submitted as part of the preparation of the debate. At several points, they educate Steve and Pierre on the studies they submitted for the debate. It was a striking spectacle of pseudoscience being challenged by actual science. Distinct facts came forward.
Some of the debate’s most notable moments included the claim that mercury causes autism. Thimerosal is ethylmercury and clears from the body faster than methylmercury. There has been no demonstrated harm at vaccine doses. Most childhood vaccines were made thimerosal-free in 2001. Notably, MMR has never contained thimerosal. The MMR-autism study was fully retracted and adjudged fraudulent.
The claim that aluminum adjuvants are dangerous was addressed. Decades of observation and multiple reviews support their safety. Large-scale cohort work found no link to allergies, autoimmune or neurodevelopmental disorders.
Another claim was that vaccines do not prevent infection or transmission. However, effectiveness against infection and infectiousness is imperfect but real, and it wanes over time, which is why boosters matter. Vaccines reduce symptomatic infection and hospitalizations.
Another claim was that ivermectin works. Cochrane and subsequent large trials found no clinical benefit. Contrary claims rely on low-quality evidence or retracted work.
The American Board of Internal Medicine revoked certifications for two high-profile figures spreading COVID-19 misinformation; Kory is one of them. Kirsch repeatedly misused VAERS, a passive-reporting system, as if it established causation to claim massive vaccine deaths. Experts have shown why that inference is incorrect and why VAERS data alone cannot determine causality.
The debate was long, but the view was worthwhile. It represents an increasing need on the part of qualified people with the tolerance for dealing with pseudoscience and/or loons directly. So, a big debt of gratitude and appreciation for Dr. Dan Wilson and Dave Farina for their work on this debate.
In fact, it wasn’t up for debate who one the ‘debate.’ Dan and Dave crushed, and thank you for 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): Vocal.Media
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/22
Rick Rosner explains compact objects without hype: compressing matter triggers quantum degeneracy pressure (electrons in white dwarfs, neutrons in neutron stars). When gravity exceeds these pressures—around the Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff limit (~2–3 solar masses)—collapse forms a black hole. Dimming is due to gravitational redshift, not ‘acceleration.’ Exterior fields encode only mass, spin, and charge (“no-hair”). The information paradox’s modern view favors unitarity; black holes preserve information, though mechanisms remain debated. Crucially, the universe is not a black hole: large-scale expansion fits FLRW cosmology, with horizons from cosmic expansion, not an event horizon. Scale matters—bigger systems have gentler curvature and tidal gravity overall.
Rick Rosner: Last night on Naked at Night, before the show, Lance said, “You have this high IQ, but you talk in everyday words. You need to say something that boggles people.” So I talked about what actually happens when matter is compressed by gravity. When matter is squeezed to extreme densities, quantum mechanics bites back: electrons (and, at higher densities, neutrons) resist being packed into the same states. That resistance is called degeneracy pressure (from the Pauli exclusion principle). In that regime—white dwarfs for electrons, neutron stars for neutrons—matter becomes “degenerate,” meaning its pressure comes mostly from quantum effects, not that it “loses information.” From far away, ultra-compact objects are hard to see not because they are “accelerated so much,” but because intense gravity redshifts and dims their light. Cross an event horizon, though, and classical general relativity says signals cannot get back out. That is why the interior of a black hole is not observable from the outside.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: To confirm for readers: “degenerate” here refers to quantum-statistical effects?
Rosner: Inside degenerate matter, if gravity overcomes all known pressures, collapse continues. For neutron stars there is a maximum mass—the Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff limit—beyond which no known equation of state can halt collapse, and a black hole forms. Stable neutron stars are not “making new sub-spaces and times” inside; they are held up by degeneracy pressure and nuclear forces. Whether a black hole interior “bounces” or spawns a new expanding region is speculative and model-dependent; it is not established physics. Appeals to Mach’s principle are not needed here. In standard general relativity, a neutron star’s stability is governed by its own mass, rotation, magnetic fields, and equation of state, not by an “informational umbilical” to the rest of the universe. The exterior only “knows” the star by global charges like mass, spin, and (if any) charge—the spirit of the no-hair theorems.
Jacobsen: Numerically, do you place that limit in the ~2–3 solar mass range, contingent on the equation of state?
Rosner: On information: the phrase “loses almost all of its information” is misleading. Hawking’s original calculation suggested information loss in black-hole evaporation, but the modern consensus in quantum gravity leans toward unitarity—information is preserved in principle (for example, via black-hole microstates)—even if we do not yet have the complete mechanism nailed down. As for “the universe is a black hole,” tempting numerology aside, it is not. Our universe is well-described on large scales by an expanding Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker spacetime, not by a static, asymptotically flat Schwarzschild geometry. The fact that the Hubble radius and a naive Schwarzschild radius for the mass inside it can be of similar order is a coincidence of scales, not evidence that the cosmos is a black hole. Light does propagate within the observable universe; what limits us are cosmological horizons set by expansion, not an event horizon confining everything to a single “cosmic black hole.” Short version: gravity can crush matter into degenerate states; degeneracy and nuclear forces hold up white dwarfs and neutron stars until a mass threshold triggers black-hole formation; black-hole interiors and “baby universes” are speculative; Mach’s principle is not required; and the universe is not a black hole.
Jacobsen: For clarity: may we state that gravitational redshift lowers photon energy and apparent brightness, which is why distant compact objects appear dim, rather than attributing this to “acceleration”?
Rosner: We are not crushed by gravitational forces because the universe is so vast that it does not take much curvature to make space fold back on itself on a grand scale—tens of billions of light-years in circumference—to keep the universe self-contained. That is why it can appear, at a glance, somewhat analogous to a black hole. But to make a black hole of, say, three solar masses, the local gravitational pressure must be enormous to compress all that matter into such a tiny volume. The matter is squeezed beyond recognition. As you scale upward from a stellar-mass black hole to something like the entire universe—which, in rough terms, would correspond to a mass on the order of 10²² solar masses—the amount of local gravitational force experienced by the matter decreases. That is because as the radius and curvature scale up, the local curvature of spacetime at any given point is smaller. So the larger the system, the less local pressure is needed to curve space back on itself. The total mass of what is being compressed also affects whether it can internally differentiate—whether new structures, fields, or even separate regions of spacetime could form. One could imagine particles appearing to “explode outward,” but another way to look at it is that the internal scale of space changes, effectively creating more internal volume where new configurations of matter or energy can emerge. There is a lot happening in that idea—though much of it remains speculative.
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): 2025/10/23
This chronological overview traces seven decades of major crimes committed by South Korean Christian leaders, from Park Tae-seon’s 1950s fraud convictions to Jung Myung-seok’s 2025 sexual-violence sentence. It details embezzlement, fraud, tax evasion, sexual assault, and coercive control cases involving figures such as Sun Myung Moon, David Yonggi Cho, and Shin Ok-ju. The analysis links these patterns to the professional limitations of theology-only education and rigid gender expectations in conservative Christianity, suggesting that such environments may exacerbate vulnerability to corruption. It closes by urging stronger transparency, regulation, and ethical oversight within South Korea’s religious institutions.
Part of the Issue
The problem with theological degrees or training without other skills can become the inability to be hired competently in many other domains of professional life. Many Christians who acquire bachelors degrees in theology, including reasonably intelligent ones, may encounter this problem if they do not originally intend on this pursuit.
“My God-given purpose in life” can be a cover for “no other options,” particularly with the narrow permissible gender role expectations of Christian married men with a child or children, which can become the seeds for future criminal activities for some. While such pressures can create economic or psychological strain, this pattern is not universal nor causal. The following are court-verified cases of financial and abuse-related crimes by high-profile South Korean Christian leaders.
1950s/1960s
Park Tae-seon was the founder of Olive Tree (Cheonbugyo). He was repeatedly prosecuted decades earlier. He had fraud-related convictions in 1959 with an initial 2 years and 6 months at trial, then a 1 year and 6 months on appeal. There was additional sentencing in 1961 tied to election-law violations. Custodial time served into 1962.
1980s
Sun Myung Moon founded the Unification Church (conviction in the United States). He was found guilty of willfully filing false tax returns and conspiracy. His sentence was 18 months plus a fine. He served ~13 months (1984–1985) at FCI Danbury. His conviction was upheld on appeal. The Supreme Court declined review.
1990s
Lee Jang-rim founded the Dami Mission, which was a 1992 “rapture” movement. He predicted the Christian Rapture for October 28, 1992. He was arrested in September 1992 for fraud tied to end-times donations and investments. A Seoul court between December 4 and 5, 1992 convicted Jang-rim of fraud and gave a two-year prison term for swindling about $4.4 million from followers.
Yoo Byung-eun founded the Evangelical Baptist Church or the “Salvation Sect”, and had Semo/Chonghaejin links. He was convicted of fraud in the early 1990s and given a 4-year prison term for diverting church members’ funds to his businesses. During the 2014 Sewol investigations, it was widely re-reported.
Kim Ki-soon/Kim Ki-sun is the leader of Baby Garden (Agadongsan). He faced a raft of allegations in the 1990s. In 1998, she was acquitted of murder and fraud, but convicted of embezzlement/tax offenses. The Supreme Court confirmed 4 years’ imprisonment and a ₩5.6 billion fine.
2000s
Cho Hee-seong founded Victory Altar (Yeongsaeng-gyo). He was convicted for fraud, illegal detention, and worker exploitation in the 1990s. Later, he was tied to follower killings. In February 2004, he was given a death sentence at first instance for the ordering of six murders. Between May and June 2004, a higher court overturned the death verdict and then found no order to kill, reducing it to a two-year term for aiding perpetrators’ escape. Cho died in custody before a Supreme Court review.
2010s
David Yonggi Cho founded Yoido Full Gospel Church. Cho orchestrated an overpriced share purchase benefiting his son, Cho Hee-jun’s, firm. Also, he had an unpaid gift tax tied to the deal and evaded taxes. At the Seoul Central District Court on February 20, 2014, Cho was charged with breach of trust causing ₩13.15B loss to the church. Cho received a 3 year imprisonment with a 5 year suspension. His son Hee-jun received 3 years’ imprisonment. The suspended term was later reduced to 2 years and 6 months with a 4-year suspension while the conviction stood.
Lee Jae-rock of the Manmin Central Church through the Seoul Central District Court was convicted of serial rapes of congregants and sentenced to 15 years and therapy with post-release work restrictions. The sentence was increased to 16 years on appeal. The Supreme Court on August 9, 2019 affirmed the conviction with a final term recorded as 16 years after appellate adjustments.
Shin Ok-ju of Grace Road Church was another criminal and abuser. She was found to have confiscated followers’ passports, ritualized beatings (“threshing floor”), and engaged in coercive control. At the Anyang branch of Suwon District Court between July 31 and August 2, 2019, Shin was charged with assault, child abuse, fraud, unlawful confinement, and coercion of followers moved to Fiji, and violence. She received 6 years’ imprisonment with co-leaders having shorter terms and suspended terms. Fiji and international actions continued against the group in subsequent years.
2020s
Lee Man-hee led the Shincheonji Church of Jesus. Man-hee was charged with embezzlement of ~₩5.6B in church funds and unauthorized use of public facilities (separate from COVID-era charges). He diverted church funds, including to build a residence, and used government facilities without approval. In Suwon District Court on January 13, 2021, he received a three-year prison term, suspended for five years (probationary). Later, the top court in 2022 kept the embezzlement conviction/suspended term intact.
Jung (Jeong) Myung-seok is the founder of the Providence/Christian Gospel Mission (JMS). Between 2008 and 2018, he served 10 years in prison for sex crimes. The new case from Daejeon District Court on December 22, 2023 resulted in a sentence of 23 years based on sexual violence against followers including quasi-rape. Based on appeals, the sentence was reduced to 17 years with the Supreme Court on January 9, 2025 upholding the sentence of 17 years including an electronic monitoring order.
Jeon Kwang-hoon founded the Sarang Jeil Church. He violated the Public Official Election Act by endorsing a candidate during worship. The Supreme Court upheld a ₩2,000,000 penal fine. Kwang-hoon was given a ₩20,000,000 fine over illegal fundraising at rallies in a separate case. No jail time.
Chun Ki-won founded Durihana, which is a Christian ministry. It runs an alternative school for North Korean defector teens. The Seoul Central District Court on February 15, 2024 sentenced Ki-won to 5 years for sexually assaulting six teenage defectors. The court ordered 80 hours of sex-offender treatment and a 5-year employment ban from child/disabled-related institutions. On July 16, 2024 the Seoul High Court upheld the sentence on appeal.
Presbyterian Pastor Si Young Oh was convicted in the Philippines of qualified trafficking in persons (minors). He was convicted abroad, not in South Korea, and was given a life sentence. The Supreme Court of the Philippines upheld the conviction on October 21, 2024.
The Future South Korean Christian Criminals
There are plenty of other South Korean Christian leaders who are criminals. Those are some noteworthy ones. Given the consistent history, the more constructive question is whether oversight and accountability mechanisms in South Korea’s religious institutions can evolve to prevent future scandals.
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): 2025/10/22
Rabbi Debra Bennet is the Director of Jewish Life & Learning at the Mid Island Y JCC in Plainview, NY. She received her rabbinic ordination in May 2007 and has previously served as the Rabbi Educator at Temple Beth Torah in Melville and as the Associate Rabbi of Temple Chaverim in Plainview, where she developed teen programming and worked to strengthen connections to Judaism and the Jewish Community. In her current role, she continues to educate and inspire her community while addressing pressing social issues, fostering dialogue and collaboration across faith traditions, and cultivating an inclusive, connected community throughout the JCC.
In this interview with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Bennet discusses how Judaism infuses every aspect of community life—from education and the arts to social support and interfaith collaboration. In conversation with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, she explores how the JCC measures impact through meaningful connections rather than attendance, fosters teen engagement through authenticity and reflection, and integrates Jewish values across departments. Rabbi Bennet emphasizes honouring intra-Jewish diversity, cultivating interfaith understanding, and promoting genuine allyship against antisemitism through shared values, compassion, and sustained, trust-based relationships.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What does “Jewish Life & Learning” mean at a community JCC?
Rabbi Debra Bennet: At a community JCC like the Mid Island Y JCC, Jewish life and learning aren’t confined to a classroom or a specific program; they’re infused into our entire community. Judaism shapes everything we do, both in visible and more subtle ways. Whether we’re helping those facing food insecurity, educating children, or supporting people as they age, the values of our tradition guide our work at every step. When someone walks through our doors, they may experience Jewish life through a holiday celebration, a Hebrew song in an early childhood classroom, or feel it in the way we show care or build community. Both the explicit and quiet expressions of Judaism are essential. Together, they create a space where everyone can connect meaningfully in ways that feel authentic and relevant to their lives.
Jacobsen: How do you measure impact? Not simply attendance.
Bennet: At the Mid Island Y JCC, we measure impact by the quality of connections people make here. While numbers matter, actual impact is defined by meaningful moments, whether finding support, purpose, community, or an unexpected experience. Someone might come for the gym but stay for a Shabbat song; a family might enroll a child, then discover a young parents’ group. Our success is reflected in the depth of relationships we foster, the belonging people feel, and the ways Jewish values enrich daily life in our community.
Jacobsen: Which program bridged Jewish tradition with contemporary community needs for your community?
Bennet: One program that deeply resonates right now is Teens for Israel, which equips teens with tools to understand and express the Jewish people’s connection to Israel, while thoughtfully addressing today’s challenging realities. As antisemitism and anti-Israel sentiment rise, this program empowers teens to navigate difficult conversations with knowledge and confidence. Grounded in Jewish tradition, it creates a space for asking questions, gaining context, and hearing new perspectives.
Jacobsen: What works in 2025 for teen engagement?
Bennet: In 2025, teen engagement thrives when it prioritizes authentic relationships, relevance, and flexibility. With teens busier and more stressed than ever, they’re drawn to spaces where they feel seen, heard, and valued. Programs that help them explore their core values provide grounding and direction, while discussions tied to their real-life experiences, like mental health and responses to antisemitism, spark deeper connections. Engagement grows when teens help shape the experience and when there’s space not just for activity, but also for reflection and meaning finding.
Jacobsen: How do you collaborate across departments to ensure Jewish values inform the arts?
Bennet: Jewish tradition teaches us that we work best when we work together. The concept of chevruta, or partnered learning, is rooted in the idea that knowledge is deepened through dialogue and that one person’s insight sharpens another’s. This model guides how we collaborate across departments at the JCC: Jewish values aren’t meant to live in isolation. Instead, they thrive when infused into every aspect of community life.
By integrating Jewish learning, culture, and values across all departments, from arts to fitness to early childhood, we create a shared language and deeper purpose. It helps members connect to something larger than themselves, whether they identify as Jewish. It also allows our staff to work from a values-based foundation, where creativity, compassion, justice, and community are guiding principles. When Jewish wisdom is woven throughout the Mid Island Y JCC, it strengthens the sense of belonging and meaning for everyone who walks through our doors.
Jacobsen: In a pluralistic setting, how do you honour intra-Jewish diversity?
Bennet: We honour intra-Jewish diversity by meeting people where they are and creating space for multiple expressions of Jewish identity. We find common ground by validating different beliefs and traditions, ensuring everyone feels seen, respected, and welcome. Our goal is to work from a place of openness, without making assumptions about what people know or don’t know. With this perspective, we aim to foster an environment that encourages less judgment and more opportunities for sharing and learning.
Jacobsen: What is your philosophy on interfaith partnership at the JCC?
Bennet: At the Mid Island Y JCC, where staff and members come from many backgrounds, it’s essential to create a culture where everyone feels comfortable, valued, and included. We focus on shared values, like community and compassion, while celebrating the richness that different beliefs and cultures bring to our shared space.
Jacobsen: What are productive community-level responses to allyship and antisemitism beyond performative gestures?
Bennet: True allyship means speaking up for one another, showing up in difficult moments, and continuing hard conversations even when they’re uncomfortable. It also means building authentic relationships across communities through cultural sharing. In doing so, our mutual support is grounded in a deeper trust, rather than just surface-level statements.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Rabbi Bennet.
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): 2025/10/18
When you travel with someone steeped in select grievance, a gentle, loving persuasion eventually gives way to containment: kindness, limits, and exit routes — for a time. This is a short field guide from one fraught trip: how to stay humane, set boundaries, and leave without rancour when conversation turns into performance.
I travelled briefly with a lawyer once, a peculiar composite of many Western traits they themselves denounced, while also reflecting the Sermon on the Mount’s “speck and plank” warning about hypocrisy: not to learn from it, but to live it out ironically.
They practised a selective moral and evidentiary posture. They would criticize my writing for what they saw as its reliance on popular opinion, demanding a deeper analysis while insisting that key phrases had been taken out of context, and simply attacking me personally and stereotyping me. When gently identified as an issue, the response was doubling down.
They were often sweeping and categorical about many things outside what they stereotyped as Western and could speak in sweeping categories about places, peoples, and perspectives. Hurt can explain a posture. It does not excuse prejudice. The posturing was often theatrical as I wrote a life memoir, having just passed the age of 30. One marvels at the self-inflation.
When I first arrived in Tel Aviv, I was urged to stay in Jewish territory rather than Arab areas of Israel. “Why?” Because I was told it was not safe. I asked, “Have you been there much?” Not much or at all, apparently, what was the basis for the opinion, then? None. They had not stayed there and knew little about it. However, the opinion was delivered with the kind of confidence one usually reserves for the Sun rising tomorrow. One marvels.
Their horizon narrowed to a hard, self-justifying individualism. Gentle questions of fairness or perspective-taking often yielded exasperation rather than curiosity. Coming from a philosophically educated background in their homeland only made the moral asynchrony starker. The symphony was off-key.
Most of the trip consisted of eating and walking; coffee, cola, and wine; smoking shisha and the occasional cigarette; long stretches of monologue, bursts of complaint, and seeking an audience. One in person or many online. They framed these recreational activities, bragged about not reading their report and just wrote the preface or foreword, then portrayed all this self-sinecure activity as work.
I soon realized the monologues would continue regardless of any reply. I learned to be wise and barely engage, for this person wanted mainly to hear their own echo — stereotyping all Westerners or “the West” as bad while being, by their own definitions, Westernized, even as they claimed the East by implicit identity – living out Western values in the East while denouncing it.
It made me pause. I do not see the world in Western versus Global South, West versus East, or developed versus developing terms. These demarcations have some conceptual utility; they are placeholders to help us grasp reality. Regardless, I am a humanist. I see humanity as one species in the same boat, whether facing nuclear-weapons proliferation, natural disasters and pandemics, anthropogenic climate change, overpopulation, or otherwise.
I hardly spoke, avoided geopolitics, and focused on art, plenty of compliments, good food, and the possibility of future visits. From the remarks they made, they seemed to assume I found them “rude, radical, or evil.” I did not. I found them generally intelligent, well-educated, and, with effort, thoughtful and kind. Often, they were lovely to be around when things were going well: an unexpected grace note I would welcome again.
They were simply another ordinary person with distinct legal and linguistic talents, an above-average character, and a tendency to stereotype others. As I later joked, they might have preferred to be born with two mouths and one ear rather than the other way around.
I have never seen “Western” culture as inherently superior, and still do not. I do not know why anyone assumes otherwise. Had they asked, I would have given an honest, straightforward opinion. We should strive to offer non-judgmental space for improvisatory opinions with travel partners. They took little time to offer empathy or consider another point of view — a pitiable lack of curiosity despite philosophical education.
They were prone to misrepresenting me – later, online, to others, in the worst terms possible. I did not confront them; outbursts or social-media rants often follow. They promised confidentiality and a safe space. This was betrayed, later making private communication public when promising a safe space and vagueposting cynical slander against me.
What to do about emotional and reputational abuse? Withdraw gently and completely. I cut off contact, professionally and personally, systematically. I do not have to participate in my own abuse.
I enjoyed an early dinner with them and a friend on the first day, where we discussed metaphysics. Language barriers made deeper conversations impossible, so I left it there. It is not a judgment — simply a cultural and linguistic barrier. How well would I be able to speak metaphysics in their languages as a monoglot?
By the second day, I gave up on their repeated monologues. I realized their questions were often intrusive, performative prying—a setup for dramatic exasperation and moralizing. Attention was the currency.
Once, after I bought them fries and myself a burger, they asked what seemed at first to be a genuine question. I barely began to answer when the moment turned theatrical. It was a superficial farce masquerading as a sincere moral inquiry. You never know when these stories will be recycled for a social-media audience, stripped of context and served up with insinuation; in this case, they were, with encouraged epithets and expletives to boot.
I stayed calm and offered terse, unserious, even sarcastic replies, having already mapped their patterns and games. They were self-involved and saw conversation as another dais for grand moralizing, as if channelling the very ill-defined “West” they caricatured.
By the third day, I stopped trying to reason altogether. Repetition breeds clarity: when every idea circles the same drain of grievance, silence becomes a form of interpersonal self-preservation.
These patterns repeated throughout the trip, along with requests for professional contacts. It is dispiriting to meet those who treat others as transactions: ears to listen, networks to exploit, set pieces for later show-and-tell, or verbal and emotional punching bags for prejudices against whole regions of the world. This all unfolded during a birthday week that ended with my father’s funeral. They knew. Why the mendacity? I was celebrating life, mourning death, and turning a page in a new region with someone entirely new. They chose to abandon fundamental charity toward a person sharing space and time with them.
This was not always principled anti-Western sentiment, but rather something closer to dependence on a stereotype. They needed a stereotype of “the West” to feel seen. A scholar as cultural paradox: caught between privilege and resentment; mimicking resistance while craving its validation; resenting what one reflects and reflecting what one resents; harbouring indifference to out-group suffering while cloaked in moral relativism, trimmed with the shawl of pseudo-skepticism.
They would cite Baudrillard while acting as if attention were the only real. It was an embodiment of a modern contradiction: to want moral authority without reciprocal scrutiny, a radical posture without intellectual humility, adulthood’s privileges without adulthood’s full accountabilities. It is to see life as a simulation and live inside a perpetual “What if?”, settling for never being settled.
By the end, I gained a vital travel lesson: choose companions carefully, disengage when necessary, maintain a kindly composure, and keep firm boundaries that allow forgiveness without forgetting. The door is open. Listening without illusion is a discipline: to hear a worldview collapse under its own echo and stay kind anyway.
Forgiveness is usually an email away. Love as a principle commands it, and loving sentiments toward this person in particular still incline me to goodwill. Later, I apologized for my part in the rupture. They behaved as if doing nothing wrong in stereotyping, in public emotional abuse, or in making private communication public. Then later, after the apology and when I asked directly about it, they joked they had published private communications on social media and tagged me – completely tone deaf.
They saw themselves as apart and me as a type. I saw both of us as just people. My refrain, to remind them of my individuality and vulnerability, was simple: “I am just a person.” That was the point I kept returning to, against every reduction into stereotype.
I wish them happiness and wellness, despite this circumstantially poor outcome for us, maybe another time: Safe Space.
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): 2025/10/17
Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka reflects on UN Women’s creation and warns of a growing backlash against gender equality. She argues that women’s participation strengthens democracy and economies, citing research estimating trillions in global gains. Celebrating progress since the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, she urges meaningful commemoration paired with forward planning. Two priorities dominate: digital inclusion—especially women’s presence in AI knowledge-making—and representation, where women still hold only about one third of decision-making roles. She calls for solidarity across movements, protection of affirmative action, and faster action so girls and young women are not left behind as technology and power structures evolve.
Dear friends,
I vividly remember the great joy and honor I felt when we announced the official launch of the new UN Women. We are facing a growing backlash against gender equality. This backlash is not new, but it is growing stronger. We faced challenges during my tenure as Executive Director, and today UN Women faces both opportunities and resistance. International organizations, advocates, and civil society are more critical than ever. The promise we have made cannot be undone by those who neither believe in nor appreciate equality and human rights.
We must continue reminding the world that gender equality benefits everyone, not just women, as we learned through the work of UN Women. When I was Executive Director, I often faced skepticism from some men regarding the importance of women’s participation in all aspects of life. Women make up half of the world’s population, and we simply cannot afford to ignore the full potential of half of humanity.
The world needs to tap into the talent and wisdom of women everywhere. This was true back then, and it remains true today. When women participate, democracy is stronger, and the economy grows. There are many studies showing how women’s participation could inject an additional 12 trillion dollars into the global economy. Gender equality and women’s empowerment are not only the right thing to do; they are the smart thing to do. Women’s empowerment is one of the key strengths of society as a whole, and ignoring it undermines equity and progress.
I have to say that every time I look at myself in the mirror, I reflect on the journey we have taken together. Let me congratulate you for the adoption of the agreed conclusions and the effort it took for you to produce the declaration, and for the fact that it has been adopted.
The sisters, Michelle and Sima, it is really wonderful to be here with you again. The first time ever that the three of us are in one place. And to colleagues, colleagues from UN Women, Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen—good evening. Thank you to Chile as well.
Thank you for celebrating and remembering this day in this manner. You can see that the Chilean Ambassador was a Chilean woman—she knows how important these things are.
We are also excited that she remembered to include the three of us in this activity. Now we are having stamps to symbolize this celebration. And I heard the story that an envelope once said to a stamp, “Stick with me, and we will go places.”
And I think that if we, the stamps, stick with you, we are definitely going to go places and cover the whole world.
It is important that whenever we have a major celebration, we mark it in a manner that is meaningful—that we celebrate, but also remember and plan for the future. It is true that a lot has been achieved since the adoption of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action.
But it is also true that so much more still needs to be done. It is therefore befitting that this year we have strengthened the agenda by identifying areas that need hard work. Let me just pick on two issues that are becoming, to my mind, significant for us to be concerned about.
If we look at the area of digital inclusion and the extent to which women are not where they are supposed to be, there is a real danger that women will be left behind—possibly forever.
And that inequality will deepen. The absence of women in knowledge-making, especially in the area of artificial intelligence—which remains a domain largely of men—is a significant problem, because we see what comes out on the other side. The absence of women, especially young women, in many places where technology shapes decisions and defines opportunity, is deeply troubling.
The way intelligence systems are used to guide how young people live, interact, and even form identities—this imbalance between boys and girls, young men and young women, men and women—is a serious issue. So I think for us, at this point, it is to organize and to do whatever we can to make sure that we position women in a much better place. We just do not have enough women.
Who are the ones informing the information that drives the technology? I have just heard recently that in South Africa, we have a group of women who are creating a robot that only uses information sourced directly from the community. This should not be an isolated story. This is something we should be hearing about every day, in many parts of the world, because girls are outnumbered.
We are seriously outnumbered. And the way in which this technology moves so fast means we obviously have to move even faster.
Secondly, just the issue of representation. This is one area where we have not performed as well as we wanted since Beijing. Even though we have seen phenomenal women rise to leadership, the fact that we sometimes have an illusion that women are over-represented—as I sometimes hear people remarking—is only because women are doing exceptional work. We often have one woman doing the work of ten men, and that creates the impression that there are many, many, many more women than there really are.
But the truth of the matter is that only about one-third of decision-making positions globally are held by women, even decades after the adoption of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action.
So this is actually quite serious. And now we are pushing against the pushback. In this era of strongmen—men who are sexist, who are racist, who do not believe in women the way we do—this is a serious problem. It means that this issue of representation is even moving further out of reach.
Women’s equality thrives when you have an environment where many other groups whose rights are denied are also rising. Whenever those rights are taken away or compromised, gender equality suffers.
It is therefore important for us, in the work for gender equality, to stand with other disadvantaged groups—to be among those speaking up for LGBTQ rights, for persons with disabilities, and for every other marginalized group in our societies. Because when we thrive together, the change we achieve is much more solid and sustainable.
And right now, we are seeing important rights being rolled back across many fronts. The area of representation is in danger. Because if you deny us the use of special measures—those tools that have enabled us to push forward so many women—you open the gap again.
It is important to preserve affirmative action and to make sure that women who are being left behind, who are unlikely to be represented in many decades to come, are included now—at this point in time.
So yes, we have progressed. And yes, we are celebrating. But we still have much more work to do.
So, good luck to all of us. 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): 2025/10/17
Former UN Women Executive Director Michelle Bachelet reflects on the organization’s founding in 2010 through the merger of DAW, INSTRAW, OSAGI, and UNIFEM, created to champion women’s rights worldwide. She highlights persistent structural barriers, political backlash, and the economic potential of gender equality, noting studies showing women’s participation could add $12 trillion to the global economy. Bachelet underscores that empowering women strengthens democracy, economies, and societies as a whole. Quoting Archbishop Desmond Tutu, she urges continued hope and action, reminding the world that gender equality remains both an urgent moral imperative and a smart investment for humanity’s shared future.
Dear friends,
I really remember the great joy and honor I felt when we announced the official launch of UN Women back in 2010. Fifteen years ago, the idea of having a dedicated UN entity to advocate for women in every aspect of life was not just necessary—it was urgent. In 2010, four different parts of the UN system—DAW (Division for the Advancement of Women), INSTRAW (International Research and Training Institute for the Advancement of Women), OSAGI (Office of the Special Adviser on Gender Issues and Advancement of Women), and UNIFEM (United Nations Development Fund for Women)—merged to create what we now know as UN Women. I want to thank all of them, because it’s not that UN Women started working for women. These organizations and many others had been working for many years, and I thank them because they were so generous and participated so enthusiastically when we created UN Women.
From the beginning, UN Women’s mission has been to amplify women’s voices and ensure their full and equal participation in all spheres of society. Today, given the complex global challenges we face, I can confidently say that we need UN Women now more than ever. The organization’s unwavering commitment to promoting women’s rights, ensuring their participation in decision-making processes, and fostering inclusive growth has been pivotal in advancing gender equality worldwide. However, structural barriers persist. Gender-based political bias has evolved in many parts of the world. We are witnessing a worrying backlash against gender equality. This backlash is not new, but it is growing stronger.
We faced challenges during my tenure as Executive Director of UN Women, and today Seema faces both ongoing and new challenges. The collaboration of governments, international organizations, advocates, and civil society is more critical than ever. We cannot allow the progress we have made to be undone by those who either disbelieve in or deprioritize gender equality. We have always understood how crucial this work is, and we must continue reminding the world that gender equality benefits everyone, not just women, as we heard from Seema. When I was Executive Director, I often faced skepticism from some men regarding the importance of women’s participation in all aspects of life. Women may come…
And I would remind them that we simply cannot afford to ignore the full potential of half of humanity. The world needs to tap into the talent and wisdom of women everywhere. This was true back then, and it remains true today. And it’s not only with more women participating that we have stronger democracies, but even the economy will improve.
Studies show that women’s participation could inject an additional 12 trillion dollars into the global economy. So gender equality and women’s empowerment are not only there—as I always used to say, so some of you may be a little bit bored to hear me say the same—but I truly believe it is not only the right thing to do, but the smart thing to do. Empowerment and women’s benefit are not only for women; they strengthen society as a whole, as was said clearly during Beijing.
Today we must work harder than ever to strengthen our democracy. And the only way to do so is by empowering women because, as we all know, women’s rights are human rights. I also want to take this opportunity to express my deep gratitude to all the staff, planners, and collaborators of UN Women across the world.
I look forward to seeing the progress that you and UN Women will continue to achieve in the years ahead. Let us reaffirm our commitment and renew our energy for this cause, which is not new but remains as urgent and important as it was fifteen years ago, when we first embarked on this journey of UN Women with great hope. I have to say that every time women advance, you will find forces that want to backlash, that want to push them back.
So, as Archbishop Desmond Tutu used to say, we cannot give up. We need to be prisoners or hostages of hope because we need the struggle to continue. We cannot stop struggling for women’s rights. I hope that this activity will continue inspiring all of us, and that the CSW Declaration, the Florida Declaration, will continue inspiring all of us so that UN Women will continue to succeed for many years to come. Thank you very much, and please always count on me on this side.
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): 2025/10/17
Rejecting both postmodern relativism and divine-command dogma, this piece argues for a third path: mixing scientific skepticism with secular humanism. Rather than reflexively “drinking the Kool-Aid,” it urges testing claims, valuing falsifiability, and grounding ethics in human flourishing. Scientific skepticism supplies method—doubt, evidence, reproducibility—while secular humanism supplies purpose—dignity, freedom, pluralism. The essay warns that political dogmatisms, including state-promoted atheism in China, mirror religious authoritarianism. It advocates evidence-based policy on climate, health, and technology; open inquiry; and empathy as civic virtues. In short: Galileo’s method meets the Universal Declaration’s ideals, uniting disciplined doubt with compassionate action within a naturalistic, fallibilist outlook for all.
“Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.”
Humanist Manifesto III (2003)
“Science is more than a body of knowledge, it’s a way of thinking… a way of skeptically interrogating the universe with a fine understanding of human fallibility.”
Carl Sagan
“Evidence… is a good reason for believing something… Beware of ‘tradition,’ ‘authority,’ and ‘revelation.’”
Richard Dawkins
If someone just offers you Kool-Aid, do you simply reject it or accept dogmatically based on prior prejudice, or do you see the Kool-Aid as equal to milk, water, or coffee?
The relativism of the postmodernists never made much sense to me. The divine command of individuals adherent to faith-based systems did not either.
Extreme versions are found in relativist skepticism in one stream and fundamentalist religion in another. I never adhered to either. Inchoate, I had another option present in mind as an agnostic in reason and atheist in heart.
The opposites don’t work either for me. The opposition of a cultural relativist in many ways is an extreme chauvinist, whether what we falsely call the West or East. Their culture, for instance, is superior to all others. That makes little sense to me.
A third option from those first two, neither in-between nor much related to them, a mix of scientific skepticism and secular humanism. A sophisticated contemporary philosophical life stance and empirical moral philosophy. That seems more sensible to me.
In fact, the faith-based systems of a divine command theory can be replicated in formulations of political dogmatism, even state-promoted atheism under the Chinese Communist Party. Dogmatism is the root; political and religious fundamentalists are outgrowths.
A third option became more appealing. A scientifically skeptical stance to doubt, test, verify, and revise, to better comprehend objective reality. A secular humanist stance for freedom, flourishing, and human dignity without the appeal to the supernatural —to see objective reality as a naturalistic process.
Something like Galileo meets the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. A methodology emphasizing evidence and falsifiability with intellectual roots in empiricism, the scientific method, and Enlightenment rationalism. The aim is to distinguish reliable knowledge from deception, error, and superstition.
An ethic emphasizing a nontheistic philosophy grounded in ethics, reason, and justice, with its roots in classical humanism, the Enlightenment, and modern secularism. The aim is empathy and rational moral reasoning.
These two integrate toward the advancement of human understanding through collaborative testing, open discourse, and the correction of error. Secular humanists value human needs, empathy, and consequences rather than divine wrath or benevolence. Scientific skeptics inform ethics through data on well-being and harm.
Secular humanists find purpose in creativity, knowledge, love, and service, while scientific skeptics see awe and wonder in understanding the processes of the universe in an honest manner without the need to invent consoling myths.
Secular humanists find value in equal dignity, pluralism, and the advancement of secular governance, while scientific skeptics advocate policy that is grounded in evidence related to everything, whether climate science, public health, or technology ethics.
Secular humanism is grounded in an objective world and the assessment of conditions related to human suffering and particularly well-being. Scientific skepticism works for quantifying what can be quantified and conceptualized while, with epistemic humility, knowing its limits. An informed decision about individual and collective well-being is not necessarily a perfectly informed one. We are evolved organisms that are part of the natural world and, therefore, have limitations.
These essentially mix into a practice of disciplined doubt expressed through compassion and goodness pursued without the gods.
Just remember: If someone offers you Kool-Aid, appreciation for the gesture would be polite, but make sure it’s actually Kool-Aid first.
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): 2025/10/16
Fort Langley, known as the “birthplace of British Columbia,” hides an undercurrent of control beneath its postcard charm. A satirical account of a self-styled “Midnight Dad Brigade” exposes tensions over image, power, and moral authority in the village. Harassment and intimidation against dissenters underscore how fragile civility can be in tightly knit communities. Parallel to this, the rainbow crosswalk at Mary and Glover—installed in 2017 and repeatedly vandalized—has become a flashpoint for identity and belonging. The Township’s 2025 attempt to replace it with “heritage” art, later withdrawn after backlash, reflects the continuing struggle between heritage and inclusion.
It’s always the little things, even the tiny ones.
I grew up in Fort Langley, British Columbia, Canada. It is among the more famous villages in British Columbia and, by some historical claims, the founding place of the province. Fort Langley is called the “birthplace of B.C.” Why? Governor James Douglas proclaimed the Colony of British Columbia there on November 19, 1858.
In my home village, there are, as with many small towns, controversies, cliques, interests, and intrigue. There have been a lot. Plenty of hate for atheists among some.
A little while ago a group of dads formed a fake vigilante group to handle an apparently homeless alcohol misusing thief in town. Broadly, the real reason was inconvenience of a drunk thief wandering town bothering some people and businesses.
It was under the guise of compassion. They colluded with the police and got some more thin positive media coverage: Photo-ops with crocs, shirts, and some beers afterwards. Then a woman speaking out against their midnight raids and faux compassion was harassed by some in community.
I corresponded with that woman. She was very grateful for a satire piece at the time. I wrote a satirical article about the Midnight Dad Brigade. They harassed my work, my professional associations, and my academic mentor’s institute over it. They tried to get me fired, disbarred, and disfellowed, respectively. None happened, but they tried with all the Good Lord’s Might, though.
When people write about thin-skinned entitlement, it’s not a lot of them to the Left’s stereotyping, but it fits the image of these (adult) poster children. They cynically presented a deliberate misreading of satire as news. “There’s your problem right there,” being elders who are liars. What is the expected response from a younger man?
In another instance, a prior Christian man with an explicit hatred of atheists stalked me to my home, on the bus, kept tabs on me, repeatedly asking where I was going, apparently amongst other Christian community members. Again, what is the expected response from a younger man?
This is intimidation, harassment, and stalking, and doxxing. All of them my elders. I have and will continue to show more Christian charity and compassion than these cowards ever have to me by not mentioning their names in print again, because it’s too embarrassing. If they are married, then it’s a gift to their families.
I am not alone in this experience or sentiment, as per the woman harangued in the midst of a timid dissenting community opinion.
Regardless, these symbolic combats continue. One over the last several years has centered around something as simple as a crosswalk. On the crossroads of Mary & Glover (center of town business core), a rainbow crosswalk was placed down in 2017. Within days, it was marked by vehicle burnouts.
There were province-wide patterns of rainbow-crosswalk vandalization noted in 2018 in multiple B.C. communities, e.g., Courtenay, Salmon Arm.
A ghost walk (local historical superstition-history tour) in 2023 noted a truck doing extended burnouts on the crosswalk. Because why not? There was an RCMP investigation and local coverage of that 2023 vandalism.
In 2025, Township of Langley Councillor Tim Baillie—apparently out of nowhere—floated the idea of replacing the Fort Langley Pride crosswalk with “heritage” art, while moving the rainbow crosswalk to somewhere like Township Hall. He pulled the motion from the agenda amid backlash.
On the same day, the Langley Pride Society issued a statement. They were disappointed by the proposal and asked for consultation. They directed people to a survey on the crosswalk and its future.
The British Columbia General Employees’ Union issued a statement. They urged the council to keep focus on hate-motivated vandalism.
Local news identified the late-added motion, its withdrawal, and partial and limited community mobilization. It was quietly scrapped. As of July 2025 the crosswalk remained at Mary & Glover, apparently, there will be consultation with the LPS before any change.
It may flare up, once more.
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): 2025/10/15
In this dialogue, Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner explore how Information Cosmology (IC) diverges from the Big Bang model. IC rejects the concept of heat death, arguing that as the universe expands, it would require ever-increasing information to define matter precisely—a paradox that breaks conservation of information. Instead, IC predicts an eventual contraction after vast time scales, with cosmic structures gradually fading as information coherence weakens. The framework posits a universe that behaves like an immense computational system with finite capacity, maintaining equilibrium over immense epochs rather than expanding endlessly toward entropy.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What are the key concepts where IC differs from standard Big Bang cosmology frameworks—especially as the universe evolves? For instance, in standard cosmology, the universe ends in heat death.
Rick Rosner: In standard cosmology, heat death is the leading expectation if accelerated expansion persists. In IC, that’s not going to happen because it contradicts the IC idea that the scale of space and the amount of matter are proportional to the amount of information in the universe.
Heat death assumes the universe keeps expanding forever. As that happens, large-scale distances grow. However, this does not make particles like protons more precisely defined: the Planck scale is fixed by fundamental constants, and bound systems (atoms, protons, solar systems, galaxies) do not partake in the Hubble expansion. So there’s no need for “extra information” to keep a proton defined. IC diverges from standard cosmology for other reasons tied to its information-capacity assumptions. So, under IC, you’re not going to have a heat death like that, whereas under standard cosmology, it remains the likely far-future outcome if acceleration continues.
In IC, the “death” of a universe happens when things collapse out of existence—when stars and galaxies run out of energy. That’s similar to the Big Bang model’s heat death in some ways, but in the IC framework, the universe doesn’t expand forever. It eventually contracts.
In an IC universe, as time goes on, the Hubble redshift keeps increasing only imperceptibly on human timescales (the redshift drift is minimal). The universe becomes increasingly disconnected and fragmented. Parts of the cosmos that once shared a common history lose that connection entirely. That shared history is erased, and the universe, in a sense, flees from itself until nothing is meaningfully connected to anything else. Every stellar body, every particle, ends up alone—until everything eventually winks out.
But the IC universe lives much longer—maybe a quintillion times longer, a gazillion times longer—than a Big Bang universe. The Big Bang model describes a universe that is homogeneous in space: wherever you are, space looks roughly the same.
If you’re standing on a planet orbiting a star in a galaxy and you look out, the number and distances of visible stars will vary depending on whether your system is near the galactic center or toward the outskirts. But overall, if someone were placed in a galaxy similar to ours—Earth being about two-thirds of the way out from the center—they’d see roughly the same thing. Space is homogeneous primarily, with galaxies distributed fairly uniformly, aside from the filaments and clusters.
Time, however, is not homogeneous. You can always tell when you are in a Big Bang universe by the size of the universe itself—it changes moment by moment as expansion continues.
Jacobsen: So there’s an asymmetry between space and time. Space in the IC model exhibits homogeneity, while time shows heterogeneity. Why this asymmetry? Why aren’t they symmetric—or isomorphic in patterning?
Rosner: Because Einstein’s equations don’t allow a stable, matter-filled static universe without special tuning. That bothered him deeply. He wanted a cosmos where everything—stars, planets, all of it—could hang there in equilibrium.
Newton imagined an infinite, static universe, balanced because everything pulled on everything else equally. Even though every mass exerts gravity on every other, he thought the pull from distant matter in all directions would cancel out locally, keeping the universe stable.
But Einstein realized that if space itself participates in gravity—if spacetime curves and responds to mass-energy—then that balance can’t hold generically. His equations show that a universe filled with matter must be dynamical—expanding or contracting. It can’t just sit still in a stable way.
So he introduced the cosmological constant, a fudge factor to hold the universe in place—a kind of cosmic anti-gravity term. Later, when Hubble discovered the expansion of the universe, Einstein called that constant his “biggest blunder.” Ironically, modern cosmology revived it under a new name: dark energy.
So, why is the universe observed to be expanding? Because there’s observational evidence that it is—and because, for realistic contents, Einstein’s equations naturally yield dynamical solutions (expanding or contracting), with ours observed to be in expansion.
Under IC, the universe is locally homogeneous. In other words, any large region looks spatially uniform, much as it does in standard cosmology. But if you go far enough from the bright, active areas—what I call the neighbourhood near t₀—you’ll find something different. It’s temporally homogeneous instead. That means the universe looks roughly the same 10 billion years from now, 100 billion, a trillion years in the future—or a trillion years in the past. The specific galaxies that are lit up may differ, but the scale of space remains about the same in IC’s picture.
If the universe is an information-processing system, then like any such system, it has parameters—a size, a capacity. Our brains are a helpful analogy. They have a finite information capacity. If you were to map the information content of your brain at any given time, there’s an upper limit. When you’re asleep, the amount of processed information is lower; when you’re awake, it rises to near the ceiling. The brain can’t process more than a certain amount, no matter how busy it gets.
Similarly, the universe’s size corresponds to the amount of information it’s processing in the IC view. If the universe is a kind of cosmic computer, its scale is tied to its computational load. That doesn’t fluctuate drastically from one “universal moment” to the next.
Now, imagine the mathematical version of consciousness—the “information space” of our minds. It might expand slowly over the years as we learn and form new neural connections. Children’s brains grow and prune dendrites, refining their mental models of the world, gradually increasing their information capacity.
But moment to moment, thought to thought, that capacity hardly changes. Say you have three thoughts per second—that’s about 10,000 per hour, 120,000 per waking day. The amount of information you add between one thought and the next is negligible.
If the universe functions similarly, and if we’re living inside a “thought” that takes, say, 20 billion years to unfold, then the universe’s size stays nearly constant from one cosmic “thought” to the next in IC. If each thought lasts 20 billion years and there are 100 of them, that’s two trillion years of relative stability. If there are 100,000 such thought-cycles, you get roughly two quadrillion years where the universe remains almost the same size.
Jacobsen: So, will the eventual mathematical framework for this philosophy of physics be clean or messy?
Rosner: Reasonably clean. At some point, someone will formalize the principles that define what counts as information in the universe’s processing. It’ll be expressible in equations.
Jacobsen: Will those equations fully capture what’s happening?
Rosner: Some will describe things precisely, but most will be approximations—like the thermodynamic equations we already use. Thermodynamics works because it compresses vast statistical behaviour into neat formulas. When you have enough molecules interacting, individual noise becomes insignificant compared to the overall trends.
Thermodynamic equations describe much chaotic activity that gets smoothed out by sheer numbers—so many molecules interacting that the randomness averages into order.
Every physics equation is probably an approximation. Some capture systems with less chaos offer more precision than others. But there will eventually be equations and physical models that describe what information is and how it behaves. Some aspects of that might barely be describable.
Rosner: As the universe expands, the Planck scale itself does not shift, and protons do not become “fuzzier” due to expansion; bound structures are unaffected by the Hubble flow. If you talk about “informational fidelity” in IC, it would have to be defined in terms other than a changing Planck scale—for example, via an information density or capacity notion.
Jacobsen: So the fidelity of the universe’s informational content is not proportional to a changing Planck scale (which is fixed); the question is whether there’s some other criterion at which the informational structure needed for well-defined spacetime fails. At what point would loss of information become so severe that spacetime itself—this higher-order structure—could no longer remain well-defined?
Rosner: That’s probably a question for tomorrow; the heater just came on, and I’m losing focus. But I think I get what you’re asking—at what point does matter become so diffuse, so fuzzy, that humans couldn’t exist?
Jacobsen: Not just humans, but any organized spacetime structure. Humans would disappear long before spacetime itself collapses.
Rosner: You could imagine a universe with only a hundred particles—maybe fifty. Humans, or anything like us, require a universe with at least around 10⁶⁰ to 10⁷⁰ particles—this is speculative, not a standard threshold. Somewhere around that 10⁶⁰ range, the structure of spacetime might become too coarse to support stable, complex systems. 10⁷⁰ might be the lower limit for a universe capable of sustaining human-like intelligence. That would be a cosmos with about one quadrillionth the matter of our current universe. Could conscious, intelligent beings with brains as complex as ours exist in a universe that small? Maybe. Hard to say. That’s one for further thought.
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): 2025/10/15
October 7, 2023, fits a continuum of violence against Jews across millennia. From ancient deportations (Assyria, Babylon) to the Roman destruction of Jerusalem and the Bar Kokhba revolt, medieval pogroms, expulsions from England, France, Spain, and Portugal, the Mawza Exile, Khmelnytsky massacres, and Russian-imperial pogroms, persecution recurred, culminating in the Nazi genocide of six million. After 1945, assaults continued: the Farhud in Baghdad, Kielce, waves of expulsions across the Middle East and North Africa, Suez-era crackdowns, and Poland’s 1968 campaign. On October 7, militants murdered about 1,200, wounded thousands, and took hundreds hostage. Rising antisemitic rhetoric historically foreshadows rising violence.
October 7, 2023, was another in a long line of tragedies befalling Jewish peoples throughout world history.
Starting, at least, in 722 BCE, there was the Assyrian deportation, or the Northern Kingdom of Israel. Sargon II’s inscriptions indicate 27,290 deportees from Samaria. Over 100 years later, in 597–586 BCE, there was the Babylonian exile (Kingdom of Judah) with biblical records indicating about 4,600 deportees in three separate waves of likely only adult males; the total displaced may indicate higher.
70 CE was the siege and fall of Jerusalem. Josephus claims 1.1 million dead while modern scholars consider tens of thousands killed more reasonable and approximately 97,000 enslaved. 132–135 CE saw the Bar Kokhba Revolt. About 580,000 Jewish war dead with devastation, expulsion, and more.
1096 saw the First Crusade’s Rhineland massacres with about 2,000 Jews killed. 1348–1351 had Black Death spread throughout Europe and then the subsequent mass pogroms affect Jewish peoples across Europe. A distinct one was in 1349 in Strasbourg with approximately 900 Jews being burned (some accounts cite higher). The continental totals for this three-year period are unknown.
In 1290, a Jewish community in England was expelled with scholarly estimates of around 3,000 affected by the expulsion. In 1306, King Philip IV expelled about 100,000 Jews. In Spain in 1492, between approximately 40,000 and 160,000 were expelled and tens of thousands were converted, while precise estimates can vary by historian.
In 1497, Portugal saw a widespread series of forced conversions of Jews followed by the Lisbon massacre in 1506 with between 1,900 and 4,000 Jews killed. In 1679, Yemen produced the Mawzaʿ Exile where Jewish communities were expelled to Tihāmah. There was mass displacement and deaths en route. Precise counts are scarce.
Between 1648 and 1649, there were the Khmelnytsky (Chmielnicki) massacres in Ukraine, Poland, and Lithuania. The estimates from contemporary scholarship emphasize between 20,000 and 40,000 killed in addition to catastrophic losses and the destruction of community.
1881 to 1906 saw pogroms from the Russian Empire with the 1903 Kishinev massacre killing 45–49 and wounding about 600 Jews. The definitive peak of the murders were the National Socialists under Adolf Hitler of Germany with approximately 6,000,000 Jewish children, women, and men murdered. There is ongoing name-by-name documentation. Approximately 4,900,000 have been named.
There is a misunderstanding of 20th century history. That being, the Holocaust happened and then there was non-violent treatment of Jewish peoples until the massacre of October 7th, 2023, occurred. This is false.
Between June 1 to June 2, 1941, in Baghdad, Iraq, approximately 135–189 Jews were killed and then about 1,000 injured. On July 4, 1946, in Kielce, Poland, about 42 Jews were murdered. Between the late 1940s and 1970s, from Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Yemen, Libya, Syria, and so on, approximately 850,000 Jews were either expelled or left with accompanying violence and confiscations differing by country.
Between 1951 and 1952, about 120,000 to 130,000 were airlifted in Operation Ezra & Nehemiah. In 1956, in Egypt, amidst the Suez crisis, there were expulsions and arrests. In 1968 in Poland, there was the anti-Zionist campaign with about 13,000 Jews forced to emigrate.
Then the October 7, 2023, massacre happened with tolls approximated at 1,139 dead (about 1,175 initially identified), more than 3,400 wounded, and about 251 to 253 hostages taken. Numbers fluctuate as better data comes into reports. Since the war began, the Israeli government reported 14,583 physically wounded by May 26, 2024, and treated in hospitals since October 7, 2023. Therefore, the numbers are definitively higher.
Antisemitic rhetoric is on the rise. So, antisemitic violent incidents will increase in correlation.
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): 2025/10/14
Thomas Gaffney is the Chief Operations Officer of OFA Group (NASDAQ: OFAL), an architectural technology company pioneering AI-driven automation for building code compliance and design review. With a background in product operations and strategic partnerships, Gaffney leads initiatives that help architects, developers, and investors deploy greener, faster, and data-informed projects. Under his leadership, OFA launched its beta AI platform PlanAid in October 2025 following a successful IPO earlier that year. Gaffney frequently engages with media and industry leaders to discuss the convergence of architecture, artificial intelligence, and sustainable innovation in the built environment.
In this conversation with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Gaffney discusses how the company’s AI platform PlanAid is transforming the slow, manual process of building code compliance into a faster, data-driven system. PlanAid reads architectural blueprints, cross-references them with local and national codes, and highlights areas of noncompliance for real-time correction. Gaffney explains how this improves project timelines, reduces costs, and enhances investor returns. He also addresses data governance, black-box AI risks, and the expansion of OFA’s tools, such as QuickBIM, into broader construction applications. The discussion underscores AI’s role in boosting efficiency while maintaining essential human oversight.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today we’re here with Thomas Gaffney, Chief Operations Officer of OFA Group (NASDAQ: OFAL) an architectural practice developing proprietary AI to automate building-code compliance and accelerate design reviews. He argues that AI-led planning can shorten development timelines, reduce material and labour costs, and improve investor ROI modelling across real-estate infrastructure.
In May 2025, OFA raised capital through an IPO on the Nasdaq Capital Market, issuing 3,750,000 ordinary shares at $4.00 per share. In October 2025, the company announced the beta launch of “PlanAid,” an AI application for building-code compliance. Gaffney’s responsibilities span product operations and partnerships, helping architects, developers, and capital markets deploy greener, faster, and data-driven projects at scale. He frequently briefs the media on architecture, AI, and the convergence of technology and design. How does AI close the gap in code compliance and approvals?
Thomas Gaffney: The main factor here is time. At OFA, AI creates efficiencies and we believe AI-enabled tools will help people work more efficiently and effectively.
In terms of code compliance, one of the most time-consuming aspects of obtaining permits and approvals for a building design is ensuring that it meets code requirements. Our AI tool enables architects to input drawings—such as a 26-story hotel—and read the relevant codes from state and local jurisdictions, including fire codes. It then informs the architect or the code-compliance office about areas of non-compliance, areas of compliance, and areas where it’s not applicable. (OFA publicly describes this capability as part of its PlanAid initiative.)
That process is currently done manually and is very time-consuming. We aim to expedite it significantly—first, by allowing architects to identify areas of noncompliance before submission, and second, by enabling code-compliance officers to quickly pinpoint potential issues or confirm that the plans meet standards.
Jacobsen: Are there particular states where compliance codes, from state down to county, are incredibly stringent, and others where they’re more relaxed, where the program might encounter difficulties?
Gaffney: When it comes to safety, most standards are national. The most significant technical challenge we encountered was training the computer to interpret the lines in architectural drawings.
Interpreting the code itself isn’t that difficult, because large language models are quite effective at interpreting rules, which is essentially what code compliance is, and then applying those rules to a given object. In our case, that object is a blueprint drawn by an architect, in which there are lines, measurements, and distances everywhere.
=From a layperson’s perspective, it can be confusing with an overwhelming amount of information. The most challenging aspect for the computer was accurately interpreting those lines. Understanding the rules isn’t hard; understanding the geometry is.
Now that we’ve solved that, and the machine can accurately read the blueprint itself, applying the relevant code has become a much more straightforward process.
Jacobsen: Two questions from that. One common problem in large language models is a phenomenon known as hallucinations. Although the rates of hallucinations, since this was pointed out a couple of years ago, have been dropping, sometimes by a factor of 10 every several months. Is that a problem when interpreting compliance codes, where you have to have everything 100 percent correct? Additionally, about AI, despite its potential, what are the key cost drivers? What are the main cost savings from using AI?
Gaffney: I’ll go back to my original point on code compliance: efficiency. You’re still going to have an architect who’s trained, who’s been doing this for a long time, drawing and creating designs. You’ll also have someone in the building code compliance office reviewing those designs.
As for hallucinations, that’s where review becomes essential. It’s about helping to speed up the process. The way we’ve designed it, the system flags results: this code is good, this one is not, this one needs review.
You still have to use your professional skills. For instance, an attorney using a large language model to draft a document may obtain a fabricated case citation. They still have to check that. For example, if the model produces 900 items, you can leverage these as a starting point, but you still have to verify the citations. The same principle applies here. The AI lays out the relevant code compliance rules, the timelines, and the measurements.
For instance, take the distance between an office and an exit in a commercial building. The AI draws a direct line, notes the measured distance, and generates a box identifying the relevant code section. It shows the number in the schematic and the drawing key. The user can instantly cross-reference that with the actual code. It’s easy to double-check whether the computer’s interpretation is accurate.
To your second point, the cost savings come from time and speed. Code compliance reviews typically require three to four rounds of revisions. We aim to reduce that to one or two, thereby saving architects time up front. The longer it takes to get a building permit, the longer it takes to start construction, meaning investors wait longer for returns: no leases, no rent, no revenue. The faster the permit is approved, the quicker the building can be completed and begin operations.
Jacobsen: How will PlanAid integrate with existing workflows without introducing black-box risk for lenders and municipalities?
Gaffney: For integration, PlanAid will eventually allow you to upload designs directly into the platform. If there’s a code out of compliance for a specific room, you can adjust it manually within the platform, eliminating the need to switch to another program, recalibrate, and re-upload the file. You’ll be able to make real-time integrations and adjustments directly within the system. That saves a significant amount of time and eliminates redundant steps.
Jacobsen: Outside of architecture, what sectors will the platform touch — urban planning, private equity, portfolio construction, real estate?
Gaffney: That’s part of our long-term vision. We’re currently focused on the architectural vertical, as it’s our area of expertise. But we do plan to expand. We’re also developing another product called QuickBIM. It helps generate the schematics for electrical, mechanical, and structural engineering, as well as plumbing systems. Over time, we aim to scale our tool into broader construction applications, but it is currently purpose-built for architectural design and planning.
Jacobsen: What data governance ensures training sets stay compliant with local codes while preserving intellectual property and avoiding bias across jurisdictions?
Gaffney: The risk there is minimal because this tool isn’t designed for creative output or generative modelling. It’s not producing new intellectual property; instead, it involves interpreting public building codes from local jurisdictions and applying them to existing designs. It doesn’t generate original creative content, it validates compliance. So, IP or bias issues are mitigated mainly in this case.
Jacobsen: What’s the timeline for pilot accuracy and scaling up to municipal acceptance at large?
Gaffney: We’ve recently launched our beta platform and test cases with several architectural partners. Depending on the performance of these trials, we plan to scale rapidly.
Jacobsen: Any final thoughts based on our conversation today?
Gaffney: We believe that AI will be a significant driver of overall economic growth. The faster and more efficiently things are completed, the more room people have to create new value. The quicker projects move, the cheaper they become, and the more resources can be allocated elsewhere. AI will still need a human touch, but it’s going to enhance productivity across many industries, not just architecture.
Jacobsen: Thomas, thank you for your time today. It’s nice to meet you.
Gaffney: 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): 2025/10/14
In this philosophical-scientific exchange, Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner explore whether the universe distinguishes between matter and meaningful information. Their conversation moves from the cognitive processing of text to cosmological entropy, the “heat death” scenario, and whether civilization-generated order could influence universal information flow. Rosner suggests that while entropy increases globally, local systems—like planets and minds—can grow in order and information. Jacobsen draws analogies between human learning and cosmic evolution, proposing that advanced civilizations might sustain galactic order, potentially integrating themselves into the universe’s informational architecture.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Let us do some math. These require more improvisation, creativity, and visualization. You have a subjectivity in the universe. The universe is doing its regular informational business on the surface of a sphere—something spherical. These organisms evolve as a part of the Earth, a satellite. A sphere and a satellite evolve. They gain a little awareness. They start thinking: if they are built like us and have had a cultural system evolve like ours, they chop down whatever their foliage is, they print ink or some equivalent on it, and you end up with dead matter preserved with some agent to make it last centuries. However, it has visual scribbles on it, and they can process that as information.
What makes that organization of matter in a book somehow actionable information in the universe? Moreover, does the universe make any distinction between that? We examine it, and there is a perceptual decoding process for us. However, from the universe’s perspective, there is no real difference, except that the contents of the mind are being reorganized in a more structured way between percepts and the formation of textually informed concepts in the mind based on the base percepts.
Rick Rosner: So a normally operating universe would likely have an increase of total information, at least some of the time—maybe even most of the time.
The universe would also experience an increase in order, and these phenomena are interconnected. However, a Big Bang universe experiences an increase in entropy and a decrease in order over its life cycle, provided it does not collapse and continues to expand. It is called the “heat death” of the universe. Eventually, the universe, as an endlessly expanding Big Bang universe with a constant amount of matter (more or less), loses energy.
It burns up all its fuel, and once the fuel is gone, there are no more hot spots. The universe eventually becomes increasingly uniform in temperature—not a high temperature, but an increasingly even one. That means there are no temperature differentials that can be used to do work.
The heat death of the universe—that is, a loss of usable energy, but not necessarily of total information. If you can dump off waste heat, an expanding Big Bang universe can still be considered a closed system thermodynamically. But an inflationary-cosmology universe has places to dump waste energy—
Jacobsen: You mean, like photons that escape local conditions?
Rosner: Exactly. Photons escape local conditions, which is almost all of them—and eventually, it is all of them. Even if a photon is captured, that heats the planet that absorbed it, and that planet eventually emits almost the same amount of energy as heat. So, essentially, everything turns into long-distance photons.
Those photons lose energy over long distances, and that energy is converted into order—into the structure of space itself—and that process is negentropic (meaning it locally resists entropy).
Jacobsen: I will interrupt you on a micro note—you are on my screen as “Carole Rosner.” That is a different kind of information. It is doing actual decoding rather than the more direct processing used for, say, seeing the colour of your couch. Planets with civilizations on them are a local blip of high order. Our planet gets more ordered—accumulates more information—every second.
Rosner: This information is meaningful in a local context, but probably not in the context of the overall universe. There is some implicit information, but the universe does not have access to it. If the universe is a massive information processor, it is far too big to be aware of the goings-on of individual planets.
Now, if the universe—as an information processor—is an incredibly sophisticated and knowledgeable thing, then it can look at the size of its information space, the amount of information it must hold, and it can correctly assume that there is enough matter within that informational map of itself for life and civilizations to originate.
If we ever have a mathematization of consciousness—and I think we will—we will be able to examine the number of informational units in our brains and minds, and make reasonable assumptions about how many building blocks are available to evolve in some way, and what that evolution might look like. It certainly would not resemble life on planets in our universe, because we have, I do not know, 10⁷⁰ times fewer information units than the universe itself. It is a reasonable guess.
That does not give us the same scale the universe has for life to originate, but something could originate even in an information space as small as those in our brains. We would not know what that something is or the specifics. The same goes for events on planets with civilizations, pre-civilizations, or even spacefaring civilizations.
They are not notable within the total information the universe “knows” about itself—we are too small. However, that does not preclude long-lasting civilizations from becoming big enough and powerful enough to interfere with enough matter in the universe to become part of the noticeable order of the universe, possibly.
We know that the universe generally increases in order, in the same way our mental spaces increase in order over the span of our lives—until they start decaying. The more we learn, the more connections we make.
Given a healthy brain and body, we do most of our accumulation of order—our building of an internal model of the world—during our younger years. The net amount of information in our brains, if you count dendrites and neurons, might stay relatively stable for about 30 years in adulthood. However, it is possible that we still have an increasing amount of information as we learn to encode what we know more efficiently. I am not sure, but it is easy to imagine.
Our brains increase in order. It is easy to imagine, by analogy, that the universe also increases in order. That raises the question: if you have long-lasting enough civilizations that can manipulate matter, do the activities of those civilizations—when they are old and powerful enough—become part of the noticeable order of the universe? Do they become part of the information that the universe, in some sense, “registers”?
For instance, the Informational Cosmology model posits that galaxies can exhaust their gas and become dark, only to be reignited through the universe’s associative network of matter.
If you direct enough energy along galactic filaments, you could theoretically reignite these galaxies—turn them “on”again. It is conceivable that a billion-year-old civilization could harness and exploit such processes, perhaps to maintain activity in their region of space or prevent local collapse.
If a civilization does not want to be part of the decay that happens when a galaxy runs out of energy, maybe they can “goose” galaxies back into activity. If so, they may become part of the universe’s usable information-processing structure. I do not know, but it is not unreasonable to ask.
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): 2025/10/13
In this thought-provoking exchange, Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner explore whether the universe could suddenly vanish—an instantaneous obliteration consistent with certain relativistic and quantum-mechanical models. Rosner compares such an event to the physical annihilation of information in a brain destroyed in milliseconds, extending the metaphor to cosmic scales. The conversation delves into the idea of localized collapses, reversals of time, and Frank Tipler’s controversial “resurrection” cosmology. It concludes with speculation on whether photons can fade into nonexistence through infinite redshift, raising questions about how the universe tracks—or forgets—its most fundamental information.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Could the universe wink out of existence instantaneously, or is there too much internal consistency for that to happen?
Rick Rosner: No, it could. There are solutions to relativistic equations and quantum-mechanical systems that describe what an obliteration of the universe would look like—the destruction of structure and correlations (an apparent, not fundamental, loss of information).
I’ve thought about it. One way to imagine it would be everything in the universe changing as if flying apart at nearly the speed of light as a vacuum-decay bubble expanded (altering local physics). I don’t know if you can express that exactly in an equation, but it’s a way to picture it.
Our consciousness is an information-processing system. Imagine if your head were hit by a cannonball traveling at 1,200 feet per second—it would end your conscious experience in a few thousandths of a second.
They were physically obliterated in milliseconds, perhaps even less than a millisecond. They might have had a last fragment of thought, and then that was it. Their brain’s ability to hold any information was obliterated along with the brain itself. There’s probably a way to describe that physically.
I imagine it would look like everything in the universe suddenly rushing away from everything else at the speed of light—nothing able to connect to anything else. From every point of view, at every location, everything would just vanish.
Jacobsen: Could there be a localized collapse—where part of the universe becomes inconsistent and just ceases to exist?
Rosner: Maybe. It’s helpful to think about it in terms of what can happen to your brain. People with Alzheimer’s lose information rapidly compared to healthy individuals. They lose it over years—two, three, eight, fifteen—and we can describe that in physical terms, as the degradation of neural structures and informational coherence.
In the novel I’m writing, there’s a character who survives a school shooting. A .22-caliber bullet blasts away part of her brain. She survives, but she’s left in a twilight state of consciousness—half-aware, half-absent. Eventually, she’s restored artificially. You could describe that, too, in the language of physics—as an interruption and later reconstruction of information processing.
Jacobsen: What if there were a partial collapse of the universe, or a kind of local inconsistency—something that reverses itself? Portions of the universe suddenly enter a reverse-consistent state, where the arrow of time seems to run backward.
Rosner: I don’t really buy that. That’s more of a Frank Tipler idea. Tipler’s the physicist who proposed that, eventually, we’ll all be resurrected because the universe will stop expanding once it runs out of kinetic energy, then start contracting again. As it collapses, the redshift would become a blueshift, and everything would run backward—so, in theory, we’d live our lives again in reverse.
It’s like resurrection, except not really, because we wouldn’t have consciousness of it. Tipler is a Christian, and this feels like an attempt to merge faith with physics. But no, I don’t think that’s how the universe loses information. The arrow of time keeps going in the same direction.
When you look out at the universe, it doesn’t look like it’s 13.8 billion years old anymore. After about 30 billion years, it might look more like it’s only what remains within our observable look-back window—like it’s being nibbled away at the edges. That would appear as an increase in recessional velocity—the cosmological (Hubble) redshift.
If you could turn a dial and adjust the Hubble constant (purely hypothetically), you could increase that apparent expansion rate—the relative velocity per 100 million light-years. Doing so would push distant galaxies past the point of visibility.
By doing that, you’d effectively decrease the observable window of the universe, even though time would still move forward. The arrow of time would continue to function, but the universe’s ability to hold information accessibly within our horizon would diminish.
Jacobsen: In an informational cosmology sense, is there a lowest possible wave for a photon—a least energetic photon you can make before it stops being meaningfully “there”? A photon that’s so weak it ceases to exist in any practical way.
Rosner: I don’t think there’s a theoretical minimum. If you had a ten-trillion-year-old universe—or even a quadrillion-year-old one—and a photon that never hit anything, it would just keep traveling, redshifting, losing energy, stretching across spacetime.
What happens to it then? I don’t know. The universe seems to keep track of particles with mass, but can it entirely lose track of a photon? I’m not sure.
Jacobsen: Do photons disappear beyond our cosmic event horizon when they’ve traveled so long and become so redshifted that they can no longer interact with anything?
Rosner: Maybe. If there’s no record of a photon—no interaction, no trace—then it effectively doesn’t exist. There are countless “implicate” photons produced by the processes of the universe.
Many of them travel so far, for so long, that they become virtually undetectable, existing only in an implicate sense, not as individual photons. On the other hand, under certain speculative cyclic models, a photon could traverse all the way back into a more compact, collapsed universe than our own—perhaps regaining some energy in the process, enough to have an aggregate effect.
I’m not sure, because on one hand, a photon’s energy is reduced by cosmic expansion (cosmological redshift), while the overall curvature of space evolves as energy density decreases. But if a photon enters a region of higher gravitational curvature, its energy is gravitationally blueshifted.
That would look like gravitational acceleration. A photon always travels at the speed of light, but when it moves into a stronger gravitational field, its frequency increases—it gains energy in that local frame. Maybe something like that happens when photons reach regions of extreme curvature near compact objects .
In the aggregate, could they have enough energy—especially if concentrated along galactic filaments—to reignite star formation?
Or maybe it’s the energy lost to curvature that actually changes the geometry of spacetime, allowing structure to evolve. That seems more reasonable: as energy density redistributes, curvature relaxes, and new regions of matter can form stars again through gravitational collapse.
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): 2025/10/11
Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner examine Information Cosmology (IC) as an alternative lens on gravity, time, and dimensionality. IC treats the universe as an information processor: no true event horizons, no infinite-density singularities—only quantum limits on compressibility and information flow. Time slows near collapsed matter yet remains dynamic at the center. Extra dimensions are informationally expensive, so reality stabilizes to three after early fuzzy epochs. Redshift reflects informational segregation; correlated histories cluster locally. Photons exemplify dimensionless behavior until interactions set geometry. A universal clock emerges from global information updates, roughly aligning subjective brain time with overall objective cosmic ticks.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: We have not talked about this part of the series in a few years. Not black holes, but “blackish holes.” When matter collapses, time slows near the outskirts, not at the active center. The active center remains dynamic—there is still time there. Collapsed matter causes a slowing of time compared to the more active areas of the universe, where time flows more as we experience it. Under IC—Information Cosmology—does that model envision time differently than general or special relativity does, especially in the context of collapsed or inflated matter?
Rick Rosner: Yes. Under IC, which is all about the flow of information, maybe I am entirely wrong, but there can still be information moving in and out. There are no true event horizons in IC—or at least that is my understanding. However, I could be totally mistaken about that.
You get weird time effects around event horizons, but under IC—Information Cosmology—there are no true singularities. There is a limit to how much matter can be compressed within an intense gravitational field.
You can only squeeze material down until there is no information left to extract. That is still incredibly dense, but not infinitely so. In general relativity, a black hole’s density theoretically goes to infinity—a true singularity. In IC, there is a quantum limit. Quantum fuzziness around what would otherwise be a singularity prevents infinite compression. The gravitational field can still be enormously strong, but not limitless.
General relativity works beautifully in most situations, even most cosmological ones, just as Newtonian gravity works fine for everyday mechanics. However, IC suggests boundaries where general relativity starts to break down—specifically around extreme densities and information limits.
I suspect there might be efficiencies to exploit near the massive black hole at the center of galaxies. The scale of space and the rate of time there might make computation more efficient—perhaps faster or denser processing near that gravitational environment. However, that is speculative.
Jacobsen: Is the topology of IC substantially different from current models?
Rosner: Maybe. I have not studied it deeply, but I have been reading about high-dimensional data in fields like epigenetics. Sometimes, your dataset can occupy a space with twenty thousand dimensions—an information space so complex it is almost useless until you apply dimensionality reduction techniques.
IC, if it is good, should explain why we experience only three spatial dimensions. The short answer: extra dimensions are informationally expensive. It costs too much to sustain them. So, reality economizes on information, reducing everything to three spatial dimensions.
The additional dimensions—if they exist—could be encoded within the forces and interactions among particles, wrapped up in the tensions between gravitational, electromagnetic, and other quantum fields. By “particles,” I mean the basic systems of protons, electrons, and neutrons that make up our universe.
You boil everything down. Anything that does not reduce ideally to three dimensions shows up as stress—distortions in particles and in space itself.
Those stresses take the form of electromagnetism and gravitation.
Moreover, there is another thing. The universe is segregated based on the information variables it shares in common. In the standard Big Bang model, as confirmed by observation, the farther away a galaxy is, the more redshifted it appears—the faster it seems to be moving away from us.
That redshift is informational. You are living in a universe where systems that share your information—your history—are local to you. Systems less correlated with your information, with less shared history, appear redshifted and distant.
That is an efficient way to compress complexity and reduce dimensionality. The universe stays three-dimensional, but each part of that three-dimensional structure consists of local neighbourhoods—clusters of information that share history. It is how you can manage enormous informational density by partitioning it into correlated regions.
Not to say segregation is good when it comes to people, but when it comes to the structure of the universe, yeah.
Heaven forbid I use the word “segregation.”
Jacobsen: In an IC universe—since spacetime is emergent—there should be an early period when the dimensions have not fully stabilized. As the system evolves, it settles into a stable configuration through the dynamics of information. Within that, could there be fuzzy dimensions—regions where the geometry is not yet well-defined?
Rosner: Kind of, but it does not take much information, matter, or space for the system to settle into three dimensions. A universe with a single fuzzy particle has no defined dimensionality. However, if you have eight particles, that might be enough for it to act roughly three-dimensional most of the time. If you had 150 particles, that should be more than enough for a consistent three-dimensional structure.
Our universe has on the order of 10⁸⁵ particles, so its three-dimensionality is deeply established. It is only in a highly early or tiny universe that dimensionality might flicker—sometimes defined, sometimes not.
You could argue that individual particles—particularly photons—do not really have dimensions. Photons do not experience time because they travel at the speed of light, and they do not experience space because, at that speed, spatial dimensions contract to zero from their reference frame.
So, some particles do not have any fixed dimensionality. It is only through their interactions that dimensionality becomes established.
Jacobsen: How do you fit subjective senses of time within objective time? Informationally.
Rosner: We live in a world with its own clock, but that clock does not tick at the same rate everywhere. Under IC, there is still a kind of overall clock. If the universe is an information processor—a system modelling itself—then it must have a temporal framework governing those operations.
Our minds are subjective experiences of our brains, and our brains are physical systems modelling the world in real time. That means our brains have internal clocks synchronized, at least broadly, to the forward flow of time in the external world.
By analogy, the universe itself can be viewed as a vast processor where events—moments of information exchange or awareness—constitute its “ticks.” These universal events might span billions of years. So, local variations in time—slower here, faster there—do not necessarily affect the overall “clock speed” of what the universe is doing on its grand informational scale.
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): 2025/10/11
In Fumfer Physics, Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner explore the physics of gravitational wells, rotational asymmetry, and the nature of galactic filaments. They discuss how irregularly rotating massive objects emit gravitational waves—steady hums or periodic pulses—and how galaxies align along cosmic filaments forming the universe’s vast web. Rosner draws a bold analogy between these cosmic structures and the human brain’s associative networks: both systems light up, store, and transmit information. Their dialogue connects astrophysics, consciousness, and cosmic evolution, suggesting that the universe itself might operate through mechanisms of activation, dormancy, and renewal across billions of years.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Scott Douglas Jacobsen: We’re already at Fumfer Physics episode 19, which shows how slow progress adds up. Those slow drips can take you all the way to the United Nations in Geneva and New York City and even land you an interview with a prime minister or two.
What’s the mathematical difference between a large-scale object with massive gravitational pull—something that creates a deep gravitational well that everything falls toward—and an object that rotates with a small asymmetry, giving off nearly continuous gravitational waves?
So, a kind of steady gravitational hum versus a burst-like or transient one.
Rick Rosner: Either something is collapsing bit by bit—like a dying star collapsing under its own gravity—or it’s maintaining residual rotational energy.
That could come from infalling matter or from the conservation of angular momentum: as the object gets smaller, it spins faster.
Parts of it could be reaching different thresholds of gravitational pressure at different times. When there’s enough pressure, electrons and protons combine into neutrons, creating degenerate neutron matter. That might not happen uniformly; maybe it happens in bursts, though that doesn’t sound perfectly periodic.
Maybe when it collapses, it releases a burst of energy that causes it to expand before collapsing again—a kind of stellar pulsation cycle.
In practice, core-collapse shows brief, non-periodic oscillations and shock stalls over milliseconds to seconds rather than long, repeating collapse–re-expand cycles; treat the “pulsation” idea as a working hypothesis.
When gravitational collapse releases energy, that energy—often in the form of heat, neutrinos, or radiation—could temporarily expand part of the star before gravity takes over again. It could sputter like that, cycling through bursts of collapse and release. That’s a working hypothesis; I haven’t read the latest on it.
Jacobsen: Is it like a spinning top near the end of its cycle?
Rosner: No, not really. But I could look it up and have an actual answer next time.
Jacobsen: There seems to be something strange about galactic filaments. You get these long, thread-like structures—almost strings of galaxies. Observations report statistical trends where the spin axes of quasars or galaxies sometimes show large-scale alignment tendencies.
Rosner: What do you mean by their axes? The spin axes of quasars or galaxies—or, more precisely, the rotational axes of the supermassive black holes at their centers. The gas and dust orbiting those black holes—forming accretion disks—tend to align along similar planes. Locally, such alignments can occur with the surrounding tidal field; across very large scales there are hints but not universal rules. So you’re saying the orbital planes of those disks appear correlated across large regions of space?
Jacobsen: Those orbital planes seem statistically correlated within our local region of the cosmic web. A filament is essentially a chain of galaxies—not a loose, constellated cluster, but a connected thread. If an object gets pulled into part of that chain, it tends to remain within it. Statistically, something moving along that general direction would likely continue to follow the filament rather than drift away because of the continuous gravitational potential along the chain—the “chain wells.” Some would still get caught or spun off, but most would stay.
Rosner: My naive hypothesis is that these galactic filaments are part of what you could call the associative network of the universe. In a metaphorical sense, they function like neural connections—routes through which the cosmos organizes or channels matter and energy.
The reactivation of quenched or dormant galaxies could, in principle, occur along these filaments—gas and matter flowing through them can “light up” previously inactive regions, though rejuvenation appears relatively uncommon and depends on conditions—briefly triggering new star formation. They would brighten again and rejoin the active network of the universe. It might even be part of a cosmic mechanism of recycling or renewal. That’s where I see an analogy to how our brains are wired for association.
The brain consists of an immense web of roughly 10¹¹ neurons, each with thousands of dendrites and axons connecting to others. It’s all wiring, essentially. Electrical impulses travel along those connections, assisted by neurotransmitters—dopamine, serotonin, acetylcholine, and others—that facilitate communication between neurons.
When certain groups of neurons fire together, they trigger related groups, lighting up patterns across the brain. Those patterns form the basis of thought and awareness. The brain operates combinatorially—each thought or memory arises from a unique, though not perfectly precise, pattern of activation.
When those associative patterns light up, you might suddenly think of an apple, or your second-grade teacher, or abstract ideas like fairness or justice. The underlying neural patterns encode meaning through association, not exact repetition.
The ingredients of thought and awareness rely on things lighting up—neurons firing in patterns. Similarly, I believe the universe has ways to make things light up and ways for them to stop glowing. When something “lights up” cosmically, it can stay active for billions of years.
A galaxy, for instance, might remain luminous for—what?—many billion years on average. That’s a rough estimate. Main-sequence stars, the most common type, can last from a few billion years up to trillions for the smallest red dwarfs, but of course, not all stars in a galaxy ignite simultaneously. Star formation is staggered across immense timescales—perhaps tens of billions of years for the full sequence of stellar birth and death within a galaxy.
So, a galaxy could remain luminous over roughly that range, with wide diversity across masses and environments—“~10 billion years” is an order-of-magnitude picture rather than a rule—with its total star-formation activity declining as its gas supply depletes. There’s likely a typical luminous lifespan of about ten billion years for active star-forming galaxies before they fade into quiescence.
So, roughly from the time a galaxy first lights up until it fades back to a fraction of that brightness—say, five percent of its peak—you’d count that as its active lifetime.
When a galaxy stops forming stars, it loses some of its radiance—it doesn’t collapse, but its stellar populations age and redden. Many of its internal orbital orientations, the angular momentum of its matter, are preserved. It doesn’t simply collapse into a collection of black holes. Instead, its stellar remnants and dark matter halos continue orbiting, maintaining structure even though the galaxy is no longer actively forming stars.
Those galaxies still contain information—mass distributions, momentum, chemical traces—but that information isn’t being exchanged dynamically with the rest of the universe anymore. However, if you were to feed such a galaxy new cold gas—rather than energy like photons or neutrinos—it could, in principle, “reawaken.”
If that galaxy sits in a region of the universe that’s more gravitationally dense—closer to a node of the cosmic web—it wouldn’t take much inflow to re-ignite limited star formation. By channeling new gas into a gravitationally bound region, you can briefly rejuvenate it.
Not an enormous amount of matter—well, relatively speaking, it’s still considerable, because you’re fueling a galaxy—but the key is that the galaxy is already structured to react. When you inject new gas, it can cool, collapse, and form stars again, depending on local conditions and feedback.
If you think in terms of association—creating a physical system that can store information in a dormant state and then be reactivated easily—then you’d want a mechanism that allows for that kind of “easy on, easy off” functionality.
One aspect of black hole and galactic physics might involve the same dynamic: energy storage and reactivation. You can, in principle, turn on old galaxies again—feed them new matter that will collapse into stars. The remnants in those galaxies could have their outer layers stripped off in massive, energetic bursts, and that ejected material could then re-coalesce into new stars.
Though on second thought, that might not hold up broadly. A “re-lit” star would likely show distinct, anomalous physical properties—odd elemental ratios, radiation patterns, or instabilities—that astronomers would have noticed by now. So I doubt that happens on a large scale.
But this might apply to the supermassive black holes at the centers of galaxies—the ones with millions or billions of solar masses. Those giants can release enormous amounts of energy, shedding parts of their outer accretion disks and flooding their host galaxies with radiation and energetic particles—protons and electrons—that could, in some cases, compress nearby gas clouds and seed new star formation. Positive AGN feedback of this sort is observed in specific systems, though quenching is more common—so consider it a sometimes-mechanism, not a universal 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): Vocal.Media
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/09
The 2025 Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to John Clarke, Michel H. Devoret, and John M. Martinis for their pioneering work on macroscopic quantum mechanical tunneling and energy quantization in electrical circuits. Their achievement bridges theory and engineering by revealing quantum behavior in large, engineered systems—once thought confined to atomic scales. This experimental triumph laid groundwork for quantum computing, where maintaining fragile quantum states enables calculations beyond classical limits. Their work embodies the precision and universality of quantum mechanics, a cornerstone of modern physics and technology, reaffirming its supremacy in explaining nature’s smallest and now, surprisingly, larger scales.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: It’s arguably the most controversial Nobel. All right, moving on—the Nobel Prize in Physics for 2025 was awarded jointly to John Clarke, Michel H. Devoret, and John M. Martinis for the discovery of macroscopic quantum mechanical tunneling and energy quantization in electrical circuits. So, basically, large-scale quantum effects. Where does IC fit into this?
Rick Rosner: Not a great start for IC—nowhere special, really. These laureates demonstrated quantum mechanical behavior at a macroscopic scale, meaning they were able to make quantum effects visible in larger, engineered systems. In physics, regardless of the theoretical framework, everything must ultimately incorporate quantum mechanics. It’s one of the most precise, elegant, and experimentally verified theories ever developed.
The two great pillars of physics—quantum mechanics and general relativity—don’t naturally agree. We’ve spent a century trying to unify them, and so far, they remain mathematically incompatible. But if you had to pick the more universally confirmed theory, quantum mechanics wins by sheer volume of experimental validation.
General relativity, which describes the curvature of spacetime and gravity’s effect on matter, is tested in phenomena like gravitational lensing, black holes, and especially GPS systems. A satellite’s onboard clock experiences weaker gravity than a clock on Earth’s surface, so time ticks faster in orbit. GPS accounts for this relativistic time dilation every second—if it didn’t, your phone’s location would drift kilometers off within minutes.
Still, quantum mechanics has been tested with even greater precision. Every semiconductor, laser, and MRI machine relies on it. Any new theory of physics must preserve quantum mechanics or reproduce its predictions—otherwise it’s immediately wrong.
So, what Clarke, Devoret, and Martinis achieved was engineering. They took phenomena that normally vanish into background noise—microscopic quantum fluctuations—and made them observable at the macroscopic level. That’s a stunning experimental feat. It’s the same conceptual ground as quantum computing, where researchers isolate and stabilize “qubits” long enough to perform meaningful computation.
Quantum states are fragile; they tend to collapse into classical states when exposed to heat, light, or vibration—what’s called decoherence. But by building exquisitely precise systems, you can preserve quantum indeterminacy long enough to exploit it for calculations that classical computers would take millennia to complete.
In short: these physicists didn’t just observe quantum weirdness—they built machines that use it. They turned the abstract mathematics of quantum mechanics into tangible engineering. That’s what makes the discovery worthy of a Nobel.
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): 2025/10/09
Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner flip their ongoing exploration of an information-based cosmos to ask what IC forbids. Rosner argues that in IC the scale of space, number of objects, total information, and cosmic age must co-scale, ruling out “fuzzy” universes where matter dwarfs information capacity. IC, like mainstream physics, demands self-consistency: macroscopic objects persist independent of viewpoint.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: We have talked a lot over the last few years about the possible, or the lines of possible, actualization in reality within an information-based skeletal framework of reality while we have ignored an important inversion of this question relevant to the subject at hand. Not the possible but, what would not be possible under IC?
Rick Rosner: That is a worthwhile question. Under IC, the scale of space, the number of objects in a universe, the total information content, and the age of the universe are all proportional to one another. One scenario that would therefore be ruled out is an extremely “fuzzy” universe at our present scale.
Our universe is said to contain on the order of 10^85 particles—protons, electrons, and likely photons. Imagine a universe with this same number of particles but compressed to one-hundredth of the current diameter, or, equivalently, one in which every particle’s characteristic wavelength is one hundred times larger. Under IC, such a configuration appears impermissible unless some special agency is compressing the universe—say, a global gravitational collapse that has drained its energy and forced contraction. Even then, in a fully developed IC framework, I am not sure that would be allowed.
You cannot have a large disproportion between the amount of matter and the amount of information in the universe; those quantities must remain proportional. Only under specific physical conditions—such as a collapse that lowers the universe’s information capacity—could that proportionality change.
So, quantities that ought to scale together—information, time, and matter—may not diverge under IC. More broadly, this reflects a commitment to self-consistency in physical law. That is true under Big-Bang cosmology and, really, under any physics we can readily imagine: the world is self-consistent.
We do not, for good reason, envision a world where existence is contradictory—where an apple exists when you are two feet away but ceases to exist when you are one foot away and offset by eighty degrees. If something exists, it exists consistently; its existence does not depend on the observer’s vantage point. Objects do not flicker in and out of existence unless one has intentionally engineered a system to produce that effect. Persistence of entities is a baseline assumption—and it holds under IC, as it does under any reasonable physical framework.
That is all I have as well. It was a good question.
Jacobsen: I do not think I have asked it before.
Rosner: Agreed. I will try to think more about it—admittedly I may forget—but I will make an effort.
Jacobsen: And I may forget to ask again; that is also true.
Rosner: All right, I will see you tomorrow.
Jacobsen: Thank you. Thank you as well. 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.
In-Sight Publishing 